Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, ETC.) BILL (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read a Third time on Thursday 20 February.

ALLIANCE AND LEICESTER (GIROBANK) BILL

(By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)

CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)

EAST COAST MAIN LINE SAFETY BILL (By Order)

KING'S CROSS RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, ETC.)

(No. 2) BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (GREEN PARK) BILL

(By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (JUBILEE) BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 20 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Child Care

Mr. Maclennan: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the subject of taxation of child care; and if he will make a statement.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): We have received a number of representations on that subject.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister recall that we on these Benches have advocated provision for tax vouchers for child care in the past three Finance Bills? Does he recognise that provision is required for local authorities, voluntary groups and the private sector to provide places in creches and nursery schools? Will he take steps to ensure that that is possible following the Budget?

Mr. Maude: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have promoted all sorts of proposals in recent years, and many of them have been contradictory. At this stage in the period preceding the Budget, he will not expect me or any of my right hon. Friends to say anything about specific tax matters.

Mr. Thurnham: Is my hon. Friend aware that private nursery provision has increased by 50 per cent. in recent years and that efficient councils such as Wandsworth have been able to provide nursery education fully to all the children in their areas?

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend makes an important point.

Employment Prospects

Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those measures which he has taken since November 1990 to improve employment prospects.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. David Mellor): Since November 1990. the Government have reduced interest rates by 3·per cent and price inflation has fallen by more than half. Underlying earnings growth has fallen to its lowest level for almost 25 years and economy-wide productivity has increased, helping push non-oil exports to record levels. The foundations have been laid for sustainable growth in both output and employment.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Has the Minister any understanding of the individual human tragedy of unemployment? Is he aware that today's increase is the 22nd consecutive monthly increase in unemployment? Does he know that since the Chancellor and the Prime Minister came to office, some 30,000 jobs, on average, have been lost every working day? Is not the Government's complacency on the matter scandalous and disgraceful?

Mr. Mellor: No, there is no complacency. Unemployment is a tragedy for the unemployed in Britain, just as it is for the greater number of unemployed in France and the United States. We have created a climate for recovery. The key question is not the one that the hon.


Gentleman asked, but, rather, whose policies will be best able to put people back to work? The Labour party will have to deal with that issue.

Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that far more people are in employment today than in 1979? Does he also agree that a minimum wage and higher taxation would lead to even greater unemployment?

Mr. Mellor: That is undoubtedly so. There are nearly 600,000 more jobs in the United Kingdom today than there were in 1979. My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said that between 1984 and 1990 the United Kingdom had by far the best job creation record of the larger European Community countries.

Mr. Beith: Why does not the Chief Secretary recognise that a period of high unemployment and recession is the best time to spend additional resources on investment in the fabric of our schools, homes and transport? That would put people back to work and give long-term benefits to the economy.

Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman knows only too well that in his autumn statement my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was able to announce a £1·4 billion boost to the railways and London Transport and an increase of more than 10 per cent. in real terms for capital works on schools. In addition, for good measure, a substantial increase in the Government's commitment to hospital building was announced. Therefore, I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has as good a point as he thought.

Sir Ian Stewart: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the best way to provide improved employment prospects is to get inflation and interest rates down, as the Government have done so commendably in the past 18 months? The worst thing to do would be to impose swingeing increases in personal taxation of the sort advocated by the Labour party, because that would undermine the incentive and enterprise on which jobs depend.

Mr. Mellor: My right hon. Friend is quite right. As the Bank of England's recent quarterly bulletin made clear, the right environment for recovery is one of stable prices. For the Labour party, inflation is the word that dare not speak its name.

Mr. John Smith: Are not the truly appalling unemployment figures announced today—an increase of more than 53,000, taking the unemployment total to more than 2,600,000, even leaving out the thousands of job losses announced during the present month—ample proof that the Government's incompetent economic policies are certainly not working, but are causing severe hurt? Do the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary consider that the mounting job losses, with all the human tragedy that they bring, are a "price well worth paying"?

Mr. Mellor: It is quite clear that we have a climate for recovery in this country, with falling unit labour costs, inflation below the European Community average and interest rates fully competitive with those of our competitors. Once we get beyond the cheap debating point, has the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought about what the minimum wage will do to unemployment?

Does he appreciate the nonsense of the proposal to increase taxation at this time of economic difficulty? The key question is: what impact would Labour policies have on unemployment and the economic well-being of the country? That is the question which the right hon. and learned Gentleman fails to address.

Value Added Tax

Mr. Enright: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the rates of VAT since the beginning of 1979; and the dates of each change.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Maples): Until 18 June 1979, 8 per cent. and 12½ per cent; from 18 June 1979 to 1 April 1991, 15 per cent; and since 1 April 1991, 17½ per cent.

Mr. Enright: I am grateful to the Economic Secretary for his diligent research in producing those figures. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the constituent of mine who is over 21 and earns £50 for a 40-hour week why he has taken a greater percentage of the young man's earnings than he has from his right hon. and hon. Friends who go to the City and, for part-time work, earn hundreds of thousands of pounds? Is not it a fact that the Government are robbing the poor to pay the rich?

Mr. Maples: The only way to reverse what the hon. Gentleman alleges would be to go back to the sort of tax rates that we had under the last Labour Government—83 and 98 per cent. I am sure that it will be interesting to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) to know that Labour Members advocate such tax increases.
What the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) said is not true for the vast majority of the population. A married man on average earnings, with two children, has found that his tax burden from central Government has risen from 32·2 to 32·7 per cent. The great increase has come from domestic rates and the community charge, and we know who is responsible for that—high—spending Labour councils.

Mrs. Peacock: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it was the last Labour Government who introduced a value added tax of 25 per cent. on certain luxury items?

Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend does well to remind the House of what happens under a Labour Government. They had a value added tax rate of 25 per cent. My hon. Friend may have noticed that the Opposition have been floating a similar idea among themselves and discussing again in an internal memorandum the possibility of a luxuries rate of VAT. We have no problem in this regard; we do not need to raise taxes—[HoN. MEMBERS: "You have."] We have set out our tax and spending plans for the next three years. The Labour party has set out only its spending plans, including plans to spend £35 billion. Apparently, it does not need to finance that from raising more tax.

Mrs. Beckett: Is the Minister aware that he has just admitted that under this Government there has been a trade-off between income tax cuts and increases in VAT? If we take the Prime Minister's words at face value—that the Conserservative party will not raise the rate of VAT


—does the hon. Gentleman recall an interview given recently by the Chief Secretary, when he was asked about extending coverage of VAT to transport fares? He said:
nobody knows what is waiting round the corner.
The Chief Secretary then sought to imply that the Government might in some way be forced by the EC to extend the coverage of VAT.
Is the Minister aware that last week in Brussels Madame Scrivener, the relevant Commissioner, assured me that there was no question of our being forced by the European Community to extend the coverage of VAT, and that we cannot be forced so to do? Does he think that his right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary was hinting that the Government might choose to extend VAT?

Mr. Maples: This is quite extraordinary. No one could have fought harder than this Government to maintain the zero rates that we have. We have secured the right to do that. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that we have no intention of raising the rate of VAT either before or after the election. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock), we do not need to raise taxes; the Labour party does. How do the Opposition think they are going to finance £35 billion of extra spending without raising taxes on ordinary people? They cannot do it.

Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend reminds the House of the 25 per cent. rate under the last Labour Government and mentions that it was a tax on luxuries. Will he confirm that those luxuries included televisions; and does he agree that if there is not to be an income tax rate of 35p to support those massive spending plans, they can be supported only by a large increase in VAT?

Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend is, of course, right. There has to be a substantial increase either in income tax or in VAT to pay for the Labour party's spending plans. My hon. Friend does well to remind us that when the Labour party was last in office its idea of luxuries included petrol as well as televisions and caravans.

Environmental Policies

Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received in favour of taxation policies to benefit the environment; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Maude: We have received a number of representations on this subject also.

Mr. Hughes: Given that investment in cavity wall insulation, in energy-efficient boilers and in heating controls has dropped by 50 per cent. since 1987, given that even double-glazing salesmen appear to have gone quiet in this recession and given that energy-efficiency investment not only helps the environment but protects the vulnerable and the old and creates hundreds of thousands of jobs, will the Government consider extending the exemption from stamp duty for all energy-efficient homes beyond August and perhaps indefinitely?

Mr. Maude: I shall certainly listen carefully to what is said on that matter and give it full consideration. The hon. Gentleman seems to leave out of account the fact that investment in energy efficiency is desirable for its own sake.

Saving energy saves on cost, so there is already a built-in incentive for people to make prudent investments in energy-efficiency measures.

Mr. Nicholls: Will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the representations that he must have received was that from the Liberal Democrats advocating their policy of imposing an extra 50p a gallon on petrol? Does my hon. Friend agree that those who live in rural areas ought to know that that is what the Liberal Democrats have in mind? Does he agree that that policy would have a devastating impact on people who live in the country areas of Teignbridge?

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend does a sterling service in drawing attention to that Liberal Democrat policy. I wonder, with him, whether the Liberal Democrats will be quite as keen on promoting that policy in rural areas in the coming general election.

Value Added Tax

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amounts of Exchequer revenue raised from value added tax in each of the years 1978–79, 1986–87 and 1990–91; and indicate what percentage of total Exchequer revenue raised in each of these years these figures constituted.

Mr. Maples: In 1978–79, £5·2 billion and 9 per cent.; in 1986–87, £22·2 billion and 15·1 per cent.; and in 1990–91, £32·5 billion and 15·8 per cent.

Mr. Wareing: I thank the Minister for that answer and the confirmation that during the Government's tenure the burden has been placed firmly on the shoulders of those who are least able to bear it. Will the hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance that if, unfortunately, the Conservatives are returned to power in a general election, value added tax will not be extended to any of the goods or services upon which it is not already levied? May I have a simple answer, yes or no, and no shenanigans?

Mr. Maples: It simply is not true that the burden of taxation has been increased on the poorer members of society. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] That was the subject of the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Living standards at all income levels improved over that period. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The hon. Gentleman asked about three questions and I shall choose which one to answer. I think that most people are interested in the fact that living standards under this Government have risen dramatically.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it perfectly clear that we have no intention of increasing VAT. We have made our plans on spending and tax perfectly clear. We do not need to raise VAT and in the European Community we have fought harder than anyone could have done to maintain our zero rate. We do not need any clarification about that. We need clarification from the Opposition about what their tax burden will be.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Has my hon. Friend heard the call from the many people who run village halls about the burden that VAT imposes on their activities?

Mr. Maples: I hear my hon. Friend's Budget representation and will take it into account.

Mr. John D. Taylor: How can the Government give an assurance that there will be no change in VAT rates when, under the Single European Act, the Government have already committed themselves to a policy of convergence of VAT rates throughout the European Community?

Mr. Maples: Any change in fiscal measures has to be agreed by unanimous vote in the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that. according to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, VAT is progressive in its impact, given that the more people spend. the more tax they pay? May we therefore put the Government's tax policy into context: although we do not wish to raise VAT above its present level, what we have done reflects further taxation on those who can afford to spend more?

Mr. Maples: Of course, my hon. Friend is quite right. The more one spends, the more one pays in VAT. It must amaze my hon. Friend, as it amazes me, that we have to explain that to the Opposition.

Dr. Marek: Does the Minister agree that his initial answer, taken with the huge increases that his Administration have brought about in national insurance contributions, the poll tax and the burden of rates that business men and business women have to pay. makes it clear that his party is the tax, tax and tax again party? Will he confirm that the proportion of national income taken in tax rose from 34·75 per cent. in 1978–79 to 37 per cent. in 1991–92? Has the Minister any plans to lower the total burden of taxation on the people of this country, which reached its highest levels in the 1980s after the very much lower levels that we experienced under Labour in the 1970s?

Mr. Maples: It is extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman wants to discuss this part of his party's history. The tax burden under this Government rose during our first two and a hall years because we inherited at the top of the business cycle a borrowing requirement of 5·5 per cent. of gross domestic product. For every year since 1981, the tax burden has fallen. It will continue to fall this year and next year and I think that it is well known to everybody that this Government's policy is to lower taxes, in contrast with the plans of the hon. Gentleman's party. We know that it plans to spend £35 billion. We should like to know how Labour plans to raise that.

Mr. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's answer to the question on the extension of VAT, I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Income Tax

Mr. Haselhurst: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on total tax revenues of the changes in the higher rate of income tax since 1979.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact on total tax revenues of changes in the higher rate of income tax.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Norman Lamont): The top 5 per cent. of taxpayers pay 32 per cent. of the total yield of income tax, compared with 24 per cent. in 1978–79.

Mr. Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures strikingly demonstrate that lower, rather than higher, tax rates are at once a fairer and more effective way to maximise revenue to sustain improvement in important public services?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We inherited a situation in which there were penal rates of taxation, which we reduced. The effect was to increase revenue. The Opposition seem anxious to repeat the mistakes that they made before. They want to increase tax rates again. The whole country would like to know at what level of income they intend to increase the higher rate of tax. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) says that it will be at £36,000, but the right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) will not tell us and says that he does not think that it is necessary to say so.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any proposal to raise the higher rate of income tax, as advocated by the Opposition, would he damaging for morale and prosperity, because such a move would not only destroy the will to work but drive some of our best brains out of the country? We Conservatives do not want that. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that we shall always be the party of lower taxes and the Opposition that of' higher taxes?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend makes a good point. In addition to her arguments, I believe that the low rate of top rate tax is also an incentive to bring inward investment into the country. It is very much appreciated and gives us a competitive advantage.

Mr. Madden: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer realise that ability to pay must be the underlying and fundamental principle of any fair taxation policy?

Mr. Lamont: I do indeed, and we have a progressive system. What the hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand is that one can have a progressive system with two rates.

Mr. Rooney: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognise that 2.700,000 people out there would welcome the opportunity to pay any income tax?

Mr. Lamont: What the hon. Gentleman does not answer is this question: by putting up—

Mr. Rooney: Answer the question.

Mr. Lamont: The point that the hon. Gentleman will not face up to is this—

Mr. Rooney: Answer the question.

Mr. Lamont: The point implicit in the hon. Gentleman's question is: what is the point of putting up the top rate of tax if one raises less revenue? What good does that do the poor of this country?

Mr. Quentin Davies: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much income tax was paid by an average family with two children in 1979 and 1991, at constant prices.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Income tax has been reduced from 14·5 per cent. of such a family's gross income in 1978–79 to 13 per cent. in 1991–92.

Mr. Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is no longer funny.

Mr. Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reductions in personal taxation have played a major role in the revival of enterprise and the increase in risk taking, productivity and output that we have achieved in the past decade? Does he agree that reductions in personal taxation are a highly efficacious means of stimulating simultaneously the demand and the supply sides of the economy?

Mr. Lamont: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The benefits of income tax cuts have been widely appreciated. The last thing that the country needs at this moment are the sort of enormous tax increases being advocated covertly by the Oppositionb—the tax increases implied by their sky-scraping public spending plans.

Mr. Ron Brown: Has not national taxation increased with higher levels of VAT and the introduction of poll tax? Is not it disgraceful that the Government are destroying living standards, yet they claim to believe in human values? Is not it also true that the Prime Minister claimed that he was concerned about third-world debt? As this country is also a third-world country, suffering a Tory Government, what is he going to do about that?

Mr. Lamont: I have long thought that the hon. Gentleman imagined that we were living in Ethiopia, having listened to some of his speeches about the economy. Equally fanciful is his assertion that we are destroying living standards. How he can use that phrase when living standards for a married man on average earnings with two children have risen by about 35 per cent. after increases in VAT and increases in the cost of living, I do not know. The answer lies in the real increase in take-home pay.

Taxes (Abolition)

Mr. Cran: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many taxes have been abolished since 1979; and if he will list them.

Mr. Mellor: We have abolished six taxes—investment income surcharge, national insurance surcharge, development land tax, the tax on lifetime gifts, capital duty and composite rate tax. We plan to abolish a seventh—stamp duty on shares.

Mr. Cran: Has not my right hon. and learned Friend conclusively convinced the House that only a Conservative Government have the courage to reduce taxation on the one hand and to get rid of taxes on the other, in contradistinction to nearly all other Governments before them, and especially the one between 1974 and 1979 who

found endless ways of leaching money out of other people's pockets? How many new taxes would the Opposition introduce if they were in government?

Mr. Mellor: We know that the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) proposes a number of additions to existing taxation and a number of new taxes, including the reappearance of investment income surcharge. I return to the question that we shall level continually at the Labour party: what is the basis for thinking that there is any answer to the country's problems through increasing the burden of taxation?

Mr. Ashton: How many welfare benefits have been cut and how many freezes have been imposed to pay for taxation cuts?

Mr. Mellor: On the contrary, the level of benefits paid has never been higher. It has risen sharply in real terms, as the hon. Gentleman knows only too well.

Mr. Allason: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the abolition of composite rate tax. Is he aware that the 0800 free number is of enormous benefit, especially to pensioners who have had tax deducted from their gross income from their investments in banks and building societies? Has he any plans to extend the free 0800 number to other taxes which could be reclaimed by pensioners and others?

Mr. Mellor: I have no announcement to make on that matter at this stage, but I shall bear in mind the representation that my hon. Friend has made.

Mr. Skinner: If all those taxes have been abolished since 1979, why is it that the average family, starting out in 1979 with a debt of 45 per cent. of income after tax and insurance, reached the end of 1991 with a debt of 102 per cent? The abolition of those taxes has not done the average family any good, has it, or those at Lloyd's?

Mr. Mellor: During the lifetime of this Government the average family the hon. Gentleman talks about has had increases in disposable income of unprecedented levels, in excess of £50 per week, while the hon. Gentleman well knows that from 1974 to 1979 their standard of living bumped along without showing any significant increase.

Family Income

Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average family income in (a) 1979 and (b) 1991 in real terms.

Mr. Norman Lamont: The real net income of a married couple on average male earnings with two children has increased from £194 in 1978–79 to £262 in 1991–92—a rise of 35 per cent.

Mr. Tredinnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that huge increase in real income clearly demonstrates the overall success of Conservative policies and would not have come about without the tax cuts that all families have experienced? Would it not be a disaster if families in my constituency in Leicestershire and throughout the country faced the huge tax increases proposed by Labour and the Liberals?

Mr. Lamont: It remains the situation that if we had not altered the income tax regime that we inherited when we


came to office, and if we had merely indexed the rates and allowances, the average family would be paying £1,200 more in income tax. That is what it would be paying under the previous regime of the last Labour Government.

Mr. John Smith: What about value added tax?

Mr. Lamont: I may inform the right hon. and learned Gentleman that a single man on average earnings in 1978–79 was paying 42½ per cent. of his income away in income tax, national insurance contributions, and VAT. Today the proportion is 40½ per cent.

Mr. Cohen: Will the Chancellor comment on the recently published "Social Trends", which shows that the income of the richest one fifth increased by more than 50 per cent. as an overall proportion, whereas the bottom 60 per cent. saw their proportion of income fall relative to that top one fifth? As most average families are in the bottom 60 per cent., does not that show that the Government have given money to the rich at the expense of ordinary families?

Mr. Lamont: A person on half average male earnings—a married man with two children—has seen his after-tax, post-inflation income rise some 28 per cent. That is the increase in real take-home pay for someone on half average earnings. The hon. Gentleman does a valuable service by reminding us that Labour is committed to a policy of heavy redistributive taxation.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: My right hon. Friend informed us that the previous tax rates would have cost each family an extra £1,200. Perhaps I may turn briefly to the higher rates, which may he in the minds of some, and ask whether it would be possible to picket Park lane, to ask those attending this evening's £500 per head dinner whether they are paying more tax this year at the lower rate, or whether they paid more tax in 1979 at Labour's higher rates?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is utterly baffling why Labour wants to pursue a policy that is likely to raise less revenue and do less good for everybody.

North Sea Oil

Mr. Eadie: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cumulative total of all taxes from North sea oil has been since 1979 in 1991–92 prices.

Mr. Maples: Around £109 billion.

Mr. Eadie: Is the Minister aware that the Government have just announced that they have achieved a financial bonanza that no previous Government in history have enjoyed? Bearing in mind the millions of pounds that the Government raised from privatisations—the selling of the family silver—and all the money that has been raked into the Treasury, should not the Economic Secretary stand at the Dispatch Box and apologise for the economic mess in which the Government have landed this country?

Mr. Maples: The revenues from North sea oil and privatisations helped this Government to restore public finances to the kind of good shape that those of few other countries are in. Ours is one of the few countries in the European Community that would meet those aspects of the stage 3 European monetary union standards. Under the last Government, debt rose to unprecedented levels,

which was essentially postponed taxation on future generations. We reduced those debt levels. They have gone in reducing overseas debt inherited from the—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Where has the money gone?

Mr. Maples: I am telling you—listen.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister ought to rephrase that remark.

Mr. Maples: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I am telling the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) where the money has gone. It has gone in repaying the overseas debt that we inherited from the last Labour Government. It has gone on reducing the fantastic levels of public sector borrowing requirement that were reached under the last Government. It has gone on reducing income tax from the levels of 83 and 98 per cent. that were reached under the last Government. We think that that was a good investment.

Mr. Bill Walker: Welcome though North sea oil taxation revenues are, does my hon. Friend agree that they are not a large proportion of the taxes paid in the United Kingdom? Also, can he confirm that a separatist, socialist, nationalist Scotland could not expect to enjoy all those oil revenues?

Mr. Maples: My hon. Friend is right about the revenues from North sea oil taxation. This financial year, they are expected to be just over £1 billion—about one half of 1 per cent. of total tax revenues.

Manufacturing Output

Mr. Knox: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the most recent monthly figure for output in the manufacturing industry; and what is the comparable figure for the same month 18 years ago.

Mr. Mellor: The idex of manufacturing output was 111.2 in November 1991, the same level as 18 years earlier.

Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. and learned Friend think that this situation represents satisfactory progress over the last 18 years?

Mr. Mellor: The real test of what has happened has been the overall growth in gross domestic product, which has been very substantial. In so far as one concentrates on manufacturing output, the fall was in the earlier part of this period. Between the first half of 1974 and the first half of 1979, there was a fall in manufacturing output of 2½ per cent.; whereas from the end of the first half of 1979 to the third quarter of 1991, there has been an increase of nearly 6 per cent.

Ms. Armstrong: The complacency that the Chief Secretary has just demonstrated is way beyond anything that my constituents will understand. They have seen manufacturing industry absolutely devastated during the period of this Government. What do the Government intend to do not just to offer help to individuals but to give areas such as mine the opportunity to be again a fully participating part of this nation?

Mr. Mellor: With the greatest respect to the hon. Lady, perhaps she should read the Confederation of British Industry's recent publication, "Modern Manufacturing Strength". It is a fair assumption that the CBI knows at


least as much about manufacturing as the hon. Lady does, and she will see a commendation of the Government's policy in the 1980s and a firm recommendation that it should continue.

Mr. Devlin: Is not the constituency of the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) in the middle of the area of the United Kingdom which gets the largest level of outside investment into this country and, indeed, into the European Community? Is not that new manufacturing capacity brought here by the Government's successes in promoting Britain and the north of England as a location for manufacturing?

Mr. Mellor: My hon. Friend has made an invaluable point. The fact that this country has recently received 50 per cent. of total inward investment by the United States and Japan in the European Community has made possible a diversified economic base, particularly in manufacturing in the north. This has enabled the north to weather this recession far better than any previous recessions and in a way that bears the best comparison with the south.

Mr. John Smith: As the Chief Secretary has no doubt noticed, the Government's figures today indicate yet a further fall in investment in the manufacturing sector. Given the horrendous job losses that have been announced this month in the manufacturing sector, are these signs of the success of the Government's economic policy?

Mr. Mellor: What those figures certainly reveal is that the real gains in investment in British business since 1979 have been sustained, so that even at the depth of this present recession investment is 40 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1979. That was the position last year and it is a sign of the real improvements in investment that have followed the policies of this Government.

Charter Mark

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on how the charter mark will operate.

Mr. Maude: Charter marks will be awarded each year to those organisations that have delivered service to the public to the highest standard at present available. They must be able to show measurable improvements in the quality of their services over the past two years, and customer satisfaction, and they must have in hand or plan to introduce at least one innovative enhancement to their services which entails no additional cost to the taxpayer or consumer.

Mr. Mitchell: Since the charter mark is designed to improve public services, does my hon. Friend agree that the attack launched today on the citizens charter by the National and Local Government Officers Association in a lavish newspaper advertising campaign is typical of that union's contempt for the consumer and lack of interest in improving public services?

Mr. Maude: What is depressing about that campaign is its spineless acceptance that nothing can be done to improve public services without throwing huge amounts of money at them. It would be interesting to hear whether the Labour party agrees with the view of that huge public

sector trade union. Or does it accept that the only way to make things better is to lavish ever-greater sums of public money on the public services?

Gross Domestic Product

Mr. Morgan: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to have available (a) information on the United Kingdom gross domestic product per head in 1991 and (b) comparable information for the other member states of the European Community.

Mr. Maples: October, when 1991 population figures for the United Kingdom and other EC countries will be available.

Mr. Morgan: May I draw the Economic Secretary's attention to a study that I have just received from the House of Commons Library's statistical section? According, to the author's best estimates, the average gross domestic product per head in this country in 1991 was five percentage points behind that of Italy. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that that means that the average family in this country would be approximately £2,000 better off if it lived in Italy? Is this yet another case of "Excuse the mess, we have got the Conservatives in"?

Mr. Maples: I told the hon. Gentleman that I could not give him the information for which he asked until October, when the 1991 population figures would become available. I can tell him, however, that over the 1980s GDP per head in this country rose at an average rate of nearly 2½per cent. a year—faster than in Germany, France or Italy.
In 1974. Germany's GDP per head was 15 per cent. ahead of that of the United Kingdom; by 1979, after five years of Labour government, in was 19 per cent. ahead. In 1990, after I 1 years of Conservative government, the gap had been closed to 16 per cent. If the hon. Gentleman examines measures of GDP per head and compares this country with France, Germany or Italy, he will find that the gap widened under the last Labour Government and has closed under the present Government.

Savings

Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement of his policy on the level of savings.

Mr. Norman Lamont: The Government aim to secure an appropriate climate in which people can plan sensibly for the future, making their own decisions about what to save and what to spend.

Mr. Oppenheim: Would not a policy of clobbering savers with an investment surcharge reduce savings and so reduce the pool of available investment capital for manufacturing industry? Do not such policies illustrate the fact that no amount of tacky red plastic roses, sharp suits or slick public relations can disguise how little Labour has really changed?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Labour Members talk all the time about the need for investment. Investment is financed out of saving and the last way in which the level of savings can possibly be increased is by the imposition of extra taxes on it.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Q 1. Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Campbell: What advice has the Prime Minister for one of my constituents, Mrs. Logan, who lives in Camlinton new town and is in great pain with an arthritic hip? She has to climb the stairs with the aid of her husband and has to lie in bed in agony most nights. She has been told by the local hospital that she cannot have an appointment until June 1993. Is that the Prime Minister's way of keeping waiting lists low?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will give me details of the particular case that he has mentioned, I will certainly have it examined. What he should acknowledge, however, is that spending is up by more than 50 per cent. in real terms, 25 per cent. more patients are treated, there are far more doctors and nurses, and they are far better paid, and treatments that were rare in 1979 are now commonplace. I wish that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would stop running down the improvements that have been made in the national health service.

Mr. Aitken: On a constitutional point, does my right hon. Friend agree that if an assembly were set up in Scotland with responsibility for health, trade and industry, and taxation north of the border—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] In such circumstances, would not it be impossible thereafter for Members of Parliament with Scottish constituencies to sit in Departments as Ministers, administering those Departments—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Get it out, please.

Mr. Aitken: I know that this is painful. Would not it be impossible for Ministers to be in charge of Government Departments administering those matters for England and Wales? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be right to set up a retraining scheme for soon-to-beredundant members of the shadow Cabinet?

Mr. Speaker: I think that that is enough.

The Prime Minister: I should be happy to add that training scheme to the many other excellent training schemes we have at present. The point that my hon. Friend has made was graphically illustrated by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who is reported as having said that if Labour were to introduce its devolution plans he could not act as Secretary of State for Health for England and Wales. Presumably the same principle would apply to the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). I look forward to their confirming that. If the Labour party were then to show some affection for devolution in Wales, perhaps the same principle would apply to an even more eminent right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Kinnock: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition must have a chance to answer.

Mr. Kinnock: Not until we have a Question Time for the Leader of the Opposition, but within a couple of months I shall be answering from the Government side of the House.
Is the Prime Minister aware that in the 15 months since he got his job 840,000 people have lost their jobs? In this 22nd consecutive month of rising unemployment does he still cling to the pretence that the recovery has already started?

The Prime Minister: I accept that the unemployment figures this month are disappointing—no one can deny that—but what we are seeking to do is to put people back into permanent jobs, and not temporary jobs. That can be done only by putting in place the right conditions to create long-term, permanent jobs, long-term growth and secure jobs. That is why we have been working to reduce inflation—with success; to bring down interest rates—with success; and to cut direct tax rates—with success. Of those people who have lost their jobs, more than 250,000 are this year in well worth while and excellent training schemes. That is the right way to help people, it is the right way to achieve long-term prosperity for this country and it is the way in which we have been developing our policies.

Mr. Kinnock: For 2½6 million of our fellow citizens the unemployment figures are not disappointing—they are absolutely devastating. Why does the Prime Minister ignore the evidence of employers, who tell us that unless policies change 50,000 more jobs will go from construction, 40,000 from motor vehicles and textiles, with a further 70,000 manufacturing jobs going? Why does the Prime Minister ignore all that evidence? Why does he just sit there and do absolutely nothing to combat the recession that his policies have caused? After 22 months, does he not yet understand that sitting there crossing his fingers and closing his eyes will not bring recovery?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman talks of ignoring evidence. There is evidence, too, which he is ignoring. He has not acknowledged that more people are now moving out of unemployment than a year ago. Every month 300,000 people are leaving unemployment. The right hon. Gentleman quotes job losses, but he fails to mention Tesco's plans for 5,000 new jobs over the next year, Safeway's plans for 2,000 jobs, Nissan's plans for 600 new jobs in the north-east, and the fact that Toyota is providing another 3,000 jobs in Derbyshire. He also chooses to ignore the fact that this country has a higher proportion of its population in work than any other Community country except Denmark.

Mr. Kinnock: Under the Prime Minister's leadership, in the last 12 months alone more than 800,000 jobs have gone and during that period the number of people in employment in Britain has gone down by 800,000. The number of vacancies has fallen. Even the Chancellor confesses that the Government caused the recession. And they have continued it, and have let it get out of control. The Government are guilty on all counts.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend said no such thing, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about taking action, perhaps he will consider the action that he proposes to take in his


policies: a minimum wage that will cost jobs, a payroll tax that will cost jobs, and a strikers charter that will create jobs—not here but in France, in Germany, in Belgium, in Italy, in the United States and elsewhere. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how the costs of extending national insurance or raising taxation will help employment? None of that will help employment. The right hon. Gentleman's plans would spell disaster for this economy, disaster for companies and permanent unemployment for millions of people.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does the Prime Minister accept that one of the great achievements of the Olympic movement is to bring nations together in sporting endeavour and excellence and that similarly, despite the forthcoming general election, all political parties are brought together to support this country's bid to host the Olympic games in the year 2000? Will my right hon. Friend agree to support fully the Manchester Olympic bid which will benefit not only the north-west of England, where most of the events will be staged, but our capital city and the rest of the countryi—n fact, the whole nation?

The Prime Minister: I met the Manchester Olympic bid committee some weeks ago when we discussed the proposed bid that Manchester wishes to make. I asked on that occasion for considerably more information. That is being provided and I look forward to meeting the bid committee again towards the end of this month.

Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister is right—the Government are not wholly to blame for this recession, but they are chiefly to blame. Does he realise that what the country now needs from him is hope, but all that it gets is complacency; that what the country needs from him is leadership, but all that it gets from him is excuses; that what the country now needs is a Government who will act, but what it has is a Government paralysed by the election who dodge the issues, duck the realities and do nothing?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for reprising his party political broadcast of last evening. It is a good sound bite, but it is not any better for hearing it the second time. What the right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind, if he cares about real prosperity for this country. is making sure that we get the economic basics of inflation and the exchange rate correct so that we can get sustainable investment for the long term, not the short-term gimmicks that the right hon. Gentleman embraces.

Sir Peter Hordern: Will my right hon. Friend tell Mr. Delors that the proposed increase in the United Kingdom contribution to the European budget is wholly unacceptable? Will he also tell him that the first priority must be to reform the common agricultural policy, to remove the losses from fraud which occur within that policy and, especially, to bring about a successful conclusion to the GATT negotiations?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend on each of the points that he makes. There is no justification whatever for an increase in the budget on anything like the scale that the Commissioner proposed. There is already scope for significantly increased expenditure within the existing own resources ceiling.

Mr. Martlew: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Martlew: The Prime Minister will be aware that there is great anger and despair in the country at the announcement today that unemployment has moved up again. That is reflected in my constituency, where there are an extra 400 people unemployed in the Carlisle area, bringing the total to a staggering 4,000 unemployed. Bearing that in mind, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity today to condemn one of his Ministers who said yesterday that people who were losing their jobs were being "liberated"? Will he dissociate himself from that comment and will he take action today to see that the hon. Gentleman concerned is "liberated" from his ministerial duties? In other words, will he sack him?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman neglected to mention that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by nearly 20 per cent. since the last general election. My hon. Friend has made clear his regret at the job losses at British Aerospace. The hon. Gentleman simply trivialises the issue with his remarks.

Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that of the known policies of the Labour party—[Interrption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there were a minimum wage and also higher taxation both on individuals and on companies, that would kill inward investment and cause even more unemployment?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend about that. It is also the case that most independent commentators Goldman Sachs, Credit Lyonnais, BZW, Phillips and Drew, Nomura, the CBI—agree that Labour would cause a rise in inflation, with all the impact that that would have on living standards, jobs and future prosperity.

Mr. O'Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. O'Brien: In a radio programme, the Prime Minister told Sue Lawley, in response to a question on housing, that repossessions had stopped before Christmas. Will the Prime Minister now tell us whether he accepts that, in addition to the massive number of homes repossessed last year, a further 80,000 families are to lose their homes in the current year?

The Prime Minister: What I confirmed in answer to the question to which the hon. Gentleman has referred was that we had put in place measures to deal with the problems arising from repossession. Lenders have confirmed that they do not seek possession where the borrower has suffered a severe reduction in income support but is still making a regular and routine payment, nor will they repossess— which is the point that I was making—where income support is paid direct to them. I reiterate that point today.

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Dykes: Further to the European Community budget proposals, which were proposed unanimously by all the Commissioners, including the two British Commissioners, will my right hon. Friend also agree that extra resources long term will be needed for redundant farmers—[Interruption.]—in east European countries, and for the cohesion fund, that there is no need for us to have the United Kingdom budget contribution under-

mined in any way by these proposals and that they are less in percentage terms annually than the last 10 years' increase in the EC budget?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend points to the fact that there is scope for significantly increased expenditure, perhaps for eastern Europe and the cohesion fund, as he says, but without the existing own resources ceiling, which is still underspent. There is at this stage no justification for the proposed increase suggested earlier this week.

Business of the House

Mr. Bruce Grocott: May we have the business?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business for next week is as follows:
MONDAY 17 FEBRUARYU—Until about seven o'clock, motion to take note of memorandum relating to the European Economic area agreement between the EC and the states of the European Free Trade Association. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Timetable motion on the Local Government Bill [Lords].
Motion to take note of EC documents relating to agreements between the European Community and Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Details will be given in the Official Report.
TUESDAY 18 FEBRUARY—Debate on Industrial Relations on a Government motion.
Motion on the Additional Grant Report (England).
WEDNESDAY 19 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day (5th Allotted Day). There will be a debate described as "The Government's Responsibility for the Recession and Unemployment" on an Opposition motion.
THURSDAY 20 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Transport and Works Bill and the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 21 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 24 FEBRUARY—Motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order.
Proceedings on the Parliamentary Corporate Bodies Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet on Wednesday 19 February at 10.30 am to consider European Community documents as follows: European Standing Committee A will consider document No. 8918/91, relating to Community strategy to limit carbon dioxide emissions and to impose energy efficiency. European Standing Committee B will consider documents Nos. 10089/90 and 9490/91, relating to free movement of medicinal and products in the European Community.

[Relevant documents:

Monday 17 February

Floor of the House

Relevant European Community Documents

(a) Unnumbered
European Economic Area


(b) Unnumbered
Association Agreements with Central and Eastern European States


(c) 10561/91
Trade with Central and Eastern European States

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 24-vii (1991–92)
(b) HC 24-iv (1991–92)
(c) HC 24-v (1991–92)

Wednesday 19 February European Standing Community A

Relevant European Community Documents


8918/91
Carbon dioxide Emissions and Energy Efficiency

Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee HC 24-v (1991–92), TIC 24-ix (1991–92) and HC-xi (1991–92)

European Standing Committee B

Relevant European Community Documents


(a) 10089/90
Medicinal Products


(b) 9490/91
Medicinal Products

Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 29-xxvi (1990–91)
(b) HC 24-vii (1991–92)]

Mr. Grocott: I cannot believe—I do not think that the House can either—that there will be yet another guillotine motion next week. That shows that the Government's business is in a complete shambles. We need to get the facts on the record, so will the Leader of the House confirm that this will be the Government's 36th guillotine motion? I shall repeat that: this will be the Government's 36th guillotine motion. That is more than twice as many as any previous Government have introduced, despite the Government's parliamentary majority of more than 100. We know that they cannot run the country, but one would have thought that they could run their own business.
It is time that the Leader of the House told us what the guillotine motions are all about. We all know that they are the Government's shambolic attempts to clear the decks for a general election on 9 April—provided that the Prime Minister does not lose his nerve, as he has done three times previously. We want an election on 9 April, and we should be happy to talk to the Leader of the House about facilitating business, which, of course, needs proper scrutiny. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not tell us what everyone knows—that there will be a quick-fix Budget on 10 March and a general election on 9 April?
It is high time that we had an explanation of another aspect of next week's business. In the light of today's appalling unemployment figures, to which the Prime Minister was quite incapable of giving a sensible response, will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government have not initiated a single debate on unemployment in their own time during this Parliament? I do not want to hear any nonsense about debates on the Budget and on the Queen's Speech. I am talking about a specific debate on the crisis that is causing anguish in millions of families. The Government do not think that crisis important enough to initiate their own debate on it—we are always the ones who have to do that. The Prime Minister cannot give an answer, but it is time that the Government did. They should give us a date for a debate on unemployment, and it should be next week.

Mr. MacGregor: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the Government have had many debates on economic policy, which have much to do with unemployment. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that the debate next Tuesday on industrial


relations is a debate on unemployment, and on the huge improvements that there have been on the employment scene—the number of days lost is at a record low—he does not understand employment issues. That is why the Opposition have advanced policies which would undoubtedly greatly exacerbate unemployment.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the timetable motion. There is now clear evidence of deliberate Opposition delays affecting the Local Government Bill. On Tuesday night, and overnight into Wednesday morning, there were considerable delays. More than 32 hours have been spent considering the Bill, many more hours will be spent on it.
The Bill is important. Many local authorities throughout the country are anxious for the Local Government Commission to be established so that it can get on with its job. When going round the country, I have had such requests from many areas. We are engaged on the sensible management of Government business, and we are ensuring that priority Bills have every opportunity to be passed in this Session.
I note that hon. Members on both sides of the House now call for timetables on all Government Bills—[Interruption.] Not everyone in the House agrees, but there has been a wide range of requests for such action. We must await the conclusion of the Select Committee on Sittings of the House, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), but 1 hope that in future we shall be able to timetable more Bills from the outset so that we do not have long delays considering their early provisions while the later parts are not properly considered.

Mr. Speaker: May I make the plea that I made last week and, I think, even the week before? The object of business questions is to ask about business next week. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to confine their questions to that and not to make electioneering points. There will be other opportunities for that.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Has my right hon. Friend seen the front pages of this morning's Daily Express or this afternoon's Evening Standard? Will he confirm that there is nothing in next week's business which is of such importance that it will prevent a statement being made to the House, either by Ministers or by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, about the circumstances in which papers appear to have been stolen from the Department of Health and passed to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), and about the hon. Gentleman's involvement in those matters?

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot make an announcement now about statements next week. I agree that it is a serious matter and deserves a clear announcement, whether it is in this House or elsewhere, about the Opposition's position. There is widespread concern about leaked or purloined documents. I believe that the official authorities have now detected the source of one leak. I hope that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who has been publishing the documents, will now recognise that he is responsible for causing difficulties for the individual who has leaked them. It is the wrong thing to do and is wholly misleading about the position in the national health service. It is a cloak for the Opposition's complete absence of policy on the health service.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the Leader of the House accept that the Prime Minister's response and his response today will be cold comfort to unemployed people? Cannot unemployed people justifiably expect that next week, in view of the figures, the Government will give time for a debate on unemployment?

Mr. MacGregor: I have already said that there will be a debate on industrial relations, in which all employment matters can be raised. I reiterate that, of course, we regret the increase in unemployment and we very much regret the situation that people face as a result of unemployment. The hon. Gentleman knows, as so many industries tell us, that the problem is that there is worldwide recession and that the same trends can be seen in many other parts of the country. It is crucial that we continue to pursue policies to ensure, as will happen, that as the recession clears Britain has one of the most competitive economies to take advantage of that.

Mr. John Biffen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the teachers' pay settlement that was announced this week has serious implications for local authority finance, both nationally and in Shropshire? Is there a possibility of the matter being debated under any of the items of business which he has announced for next week?

Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I am glad to confirm to my right hon. Friend that, as he knows, the Government are making available a further £60 million to deal with the review body's award. The matter will be debated on the motion entitled "Additional Grant Report (England)" next week. The additional grant is required entirely for that purpose.

Mr. Greville Janner: May we please have an early debate on road safety, especially as it affects children, both as pedestrians and in cars? Three days ago, 10-year-old Yvette Barr was killed on one of the awful roads in my constituency that hack through so many of the great estates in our constituencies. Surely the House should consider how children can be kept safe. More and more children and young people are being maimed or killed because they sit in the centre of the rear of cars, which have dangerous lap seat belts instead of crossed three-point seat belts. Surely we should not have to wait for the EC to act or to initiate debate on the matter. The House should consider that danger without delay.

Mr. MacGregor: I very much regret the death of the constituent to whom the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, as one regrets any such road accidents. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman will know that we have pursued many road safety measures, including some in built-up areas such as the one that he described. We are constantly pursuing road safety education and other matters under the national curriculum and in other ways.
I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that central lap belts are an improvement on travelling unrestrained. A three-point belt provides better safety, but it is technically difficult to fit them to the centre rear seats of many cars.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the debate on the timetable motion for the Local Government Bill gives us plenty of time to debate why the motion has become necessary and,


in particular, to examine the Hansard report of the Committee? The Committee has been treated to enormously long speeches, including one that lasted an hour and a quarter by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). The speeches were completely empty and showed that the Labour party has no strategy on local government other than wasting hon. Members' time and throwing buckets of money at its problems. Labour Members will not tell us where that money will come from. Their conduct is a disgrace and people should understand that.

Mr. MacGregor: I assure my hon. Friend that there will he plenty of opportunity in the timetable motion debate to raise those matters. It is becoming clear from the evidence that has been given to the Committee chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) that restrictions on the length of speeches are necessary and that many hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked for them. They are necessary not just in the period in which we now have them. Many points may be made effectively in a short time. The timetabling of Bills has become necessary to avoid the situation to which my hon. Friend refers and to ensure more effective consideration of Bills.
It is notable that the Local Government Bill, which we shall debate on Monday, contains several measures relating to a citizens charter to improve local services and to ensure better value for money. That is one of the reasons why we are anxious to get the Bill on the statute book.

Mr. Speaker: I call Mr. Hugh McCartney.

Mr. Ian McCartney: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman's father is better.

Mr. McCartney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I, for the next 20 minutes or so, advise you exactly about what went on in the Committee? The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) is telling porky-pies, as is his wont on such matters. There have been no delaying tactics from the Opposition. Since the Bill entered Committee, there has been only one full day of debate because the Government, on numerous occasions, have curtailed debate. On one occasion, they ended a whole session without debate so that the rate support grant settlement could be debated on the Floor of the House. The Government kept us up until 5 am the other morning—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I do not object to that because one of the problems is that the Committee should he able to respond to the Bill. The Government are trying to curtail debate on major issues affecting local government services. They are afraid of proper debate on and scrutiny of the Bill so that we can see what is happening to local services as a result of privatisation.

Mr. MacGregor: I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not the case. The Bill aims to ensure the efficient delivery of local services—it is one of many measures for that purpose. I understand that many Committee members now feel that deliberate and co-ordinated attempts have been made to halt progress. Hon. Members' speeches have contained much repetition and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibilities for lcoal government had to move the closure motion twice to ensure that proper consideration could he given to later clauses.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Has the Leader of the House taken note of the remarks made in the House yesterday about the conduct of business relating to the European Community? He and others seem to be trying to keep those matters of great importance from being debated properly in this assembly. Will he assure us that he will give time shortly so that the House can—at the proper time and before decisions are made in Europe—express its mind about the disgraceful suggestion of Mr. Delors that this country will have to pay for other countries that are, in parts, even better off than us? Parts of the Republic of Ireland, in particular, are now demanding £6 million a day, while Northern Ireland has been rejected for cohesion fund payments.

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will know that yesterday's vote was in accordance with all the normal procedures of the House; the matter had been debated the week before, which is the normal way to proceed. As the House approved the resolution the week before that, we took an automatic and normal vote on the issue yesterday. There is nothing strange about that.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made the Government's position on the Delors programme clear, both inside and outside the House. There is no doubt about where the Government stand on that.

Mr. Harry Barnes: I raise a matter of some urgency for next week's business. If the general election is called for 9 April, the last date when people can register on the electoral roll will be next Thursday. The new registers will become publicly available from next Sunday. Existing electoral registers show that 1· million people are missing from them in England, Scotland and Wales.
On Monday, will the Government publish the figures for the registers, constituency by constituency, so that we are aware of the current position? May we have a statement, or a debate in the House, on the issue, as we are approaching the election with crooked electoral registers?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows that his remarks about crooked registers are completely untrue and unfair. He has raised the matter before and he knows that electoral registration has been declining since before the introduction of the community charge. There is no specific evidence to suggest that its introduction has had an adverse effect on registration. Indeed, the Government have gone to great lengths to make it clear that there is no connection between the two. Perhaps Labour Members who encouraged people not to pay the community charge led the public to think that there is a connection, but there is not.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: As the Prime Minister confirmed this week that about 180,000 teachers have learnt that they will earn more than £20,280 per annum, will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House reconsider next week's business to include a full-day debate on taxation so that Conservative Members can show their support for teachers being paid more, as the review body report, which was published this week, recommends? We would also be able to show that the Labour party's proposal would cut teachers' take-home pay by abolishing the upper limit on national insurance contributions.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I hope that it is not necessary to have a full-day debate to make that point time and time again. It is instructive and interesting to note that, even before the review body on teachers' pay made its recommendations and the Government accepted them, many teachers suffered considerable overall tax increases as a result of the Labour party's proposals for national insurance contributions. Those teachers are suffering even more now. It is significant that 180,000 teachers will come into that category, but I cannot promise a debate on taxation. My hon. Friend knows that there will be an opportunity for that before long.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: When will we have a debate on Lloyd's? How much longer can we tolerate the scandals that emanate from Lloyd's month after month, with the result that we now know that some of its insiders have been lining their pockets to the tune of about £800,000? In that posh betting shop, some people are placing bets on less risky ventures, while giving the more excessive risks to those outside. If it were a working-class organisation, it would have secret ballots up to its earholes, but because it is an elitist organisation, close to the heart of the City and to the Tory party, it is allowed to regulate itself. It is high time that the Augean stables were cleaned out and the matter was dealt with properly by the law.

Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the issue of Lloyd's has been debated by the House in the not too distant past. It is a self-regulatory body under statute approved by the House. Any allegations of the sort that the hon. Gentleman has in mind—I have seen his early-day motion—are the responsibility of the Lloyd's authorities in the first instance. Any evidence of those allegations should be given to the Lloyd's authorities. My hon. Friend the Minister for Corporate Affairs has spoken to the chairman of Lloyd's, who agrees that the regulator must move as firmly and as swiftly as possible.

Sir John Stokes (Halesowen and Stourhridge): Will my right hon. Friend make time next week for a most important debate on a most important subject which is hardly ever debated here—immigration—given the recently published fact that in 1990 more than 250,000 people entered this country for settlement, the highest number since 1964? If this goes on, England will no longer be England.

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate next week, although I recognise that this is a most important issue, not least because immigration issues in relation to economic migrants have been recently discussed in the House in debates on the Asylum Bill. I am keen to get on with the business of the House to ensure that if anything comes back to the House on this Bill we can deal with it while the House is in session. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will agree that, by introducing that Bill, we are showing our concern about one particular aspect of immigration.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Before next week, will the Leader of the House have a word with the Secretary of State for Employment and ask him to make a statement on what the Government are going to do about policies that have resulted in the 22nd successive monthly rise in unemployment? Will he also ask him to

comment on the junior Minister who said that those being made redundant by British Aerospace were being liberated? Or, on reflection, is it all due to the fact that the Government have been conducting a national liberation campaign to make people unemployed, with all the misery that unemployment brings?

Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have already referred to the hon. Gentleman's point. There will be plenty of opportunities to discuss employment and unemployment next week, and to discuss the policies that are most likely in the competitive world of the 1990s to ensure as many jobs as possible. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has noticed reports that Germany has 3 million unemployed people and that French unemployment is at record levels. I believe that the policies that we are pursuing will ensure that we are in a competitive state as the world recession clears.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Given the widespread interest in the demand by Mr. Delors for more spending in Europe, will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate to give the Government an opportunity to point out that this is an inevitable consequence of the move towards a single currency, and that as long as weak economies deny themselves the right to vary their exchange rates they are bound to ask for compensation in increased payments from what they call a regional fund, a cohesion fund or a convergence fund? By any other name, there will still have to be a massive transfer of wealth from the rich countries to the poor.

Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that there will undoubtedly he opportunities before too long to discuss matters such as the Delors budget and the cohesion fund, but I am afraid that they will not arise next week.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement next week by the Secretary of State for Energy on electricity prices? Is he aware that one of the largest companies in Bradford is warning that further redundancies will have to be made if it is forced to pay 30 per cent. more for its contract electricity? Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Secretary of State to intervene immediately to stop the privatised electricity industry imposing excessive and exorbitant electricity prices? Will he also arrange for the matter to be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission so that this rip-off of manufacturing industry can be halted?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will know that there are already regulatory arrangements to deal with those issues and that, overall, there has been a reduction in real terms in electricity prices. He will also know that millions of consumers and small, medium-sized and other businesses have benefited greatly from that, and that there is some adjustment in the tariff structure for larger companies.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Leader of the House explain, when he is so obviously unable to allow time for a debate on important and urgent European matters, why on earth we are to have a three-hour debate on Monday on the European economic area when the agreement has already been vetoed by the European Court?

Mr. MacGregor: Because on that issue I think that matters are moving on, and because I have been asked by the Scrutiny Committee and the House to have the debate on the Floor of the House rather than in the European Standing Committee.

Mr. David Trimble: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to a written answer on Thursday by a Northern Ireland Office Minister? The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) asked about physiotherapy services and the Minister directed him to refer the question to the chairman of the health and social services board. That was an inadequate and inappropriate response because the board is not an independent body—it is not even a quango—but is entirely a creature of the Minister. For the Minister to refuse to answer that question is wholly inadequate. Would it be possible to arrange a debate on the matter?

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot comment on the question because I have not seen it. I shall certainly look at it. suspect—and I repeat that I have not seen the question and hope that I am right—that it may be as a result of the changes that we have been making to deal with written questions in relation to next steps agencies. If that is not so, I shall certainly have a look at the matter.

Mr. Richard Alexander: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the European Parliament has decided to ban tobacco advertising? Is he aware that 3,000 people are employed in the tobacco industry in Nottinghamshire, and that firms trading at the margins, such as corner shops and publishers of respectable magazines, will be at great risk if the ban is put into effect? May we have a debate on the matter, and one that is somewhat more than a 90-minute debate in the middle of the night at the instigation of European countries, many of which receive taxpayers' money to promote their tobacco interests and ban the advertising of tobacco products in their own countries? Should not we attend to that issue?

Mr. MacGregor: As I think my hon. Friend knows, there has been a debate on this in European Standing Committee B. The Government remain to be convinced that a total ban on tobacco advertising is necessary for the operation of the internal market. That is one of the key issues for the draft European Community directive.
The Government's policy on tobacco advertising is clear. My hon. Friend drew attention to some of the implications of an advertising ban. I agree that the proposed action by the Community is totally illogical at a time when hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money is used to subsidise the tobacco industry in other parts of the Community. When I was the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I fought against that.

Mr. James Lamond: What about the Leader of the House initiating a system of secondary statements, perhaps next week, so that hon. Members can recall Ministers to the Dispatch Box to correct statements that they made earlier, such as when the Prime Minister told us that he had solved the problem of the repossession of houses? A month later, we find that nothing has been done or achieved. Houses are still being repossessed, and the poor people of this country believe that they have been completely misled. Should not the Prime Minister return to the Dispatch Box and explain why it was necessary to mislead people in the first place?

Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already said today that we took action before Christmas, which has been debated in the House. For the hon. Gentleman to say that nothing has been done is totally misleading. The other place is passing the Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Bill, which has been considered in this place. We have passed stamp duty legislation. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong to say that nothing has been done. He must also know that two building societies— think that it may now be three—have announced specific plans. Before Christmas, they agreed on the arrangements and they have now worked them through and are implementing them. The hon. Gentleman will also know that a number of other building societies are already following the spirit of that agreement.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on local government in London? Is he aware that those councils with the worst record in rent arrears, those with the worst school results and those with the largest stock of unlet council houses are all Labour?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right, and that is a point that he could make on the Local Government Bill, because some of the clauses will empower the Audit Commission to make comparisons of performance and to ensure that the points that my hon. Friend makes are fully drawn to the attention of the local public.

Mr. Tony Banks: Would it not be a useful enhancement of the position of Back Benchers if an early-day motion that had attracted 175 Back-Bench signatures from both sides of the House became a subject for debate in Government time on the Floor of the House? May I draw attention to early-day motion 503 on the Japanese slaughter of minke whales, which, by coincidence, has attracted 175 signatures from both sides of the House?
That this House condemns the fact that Japanese whalers are slaughtering minke whales for spurious research purposes in the Antarctic Ocean; is outraged that Japan is still undermining the world-wide, indefinite ban on commercial whaling imposed by the International Whaling Commission in 1986; is appalled that Japan has slaughtered nearly 7,000 whales and over 100,000 dolphins and porpoises during the ban despite the repeated criticisms and recommendations of the International Whaling Commission and the entreaties of the international community; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to make the strongest possible protest to the Japanese Government demanding their full and immediate compliance with the indefinite commercial whaling moratorium; further demands an end to the slaughter of dolphins and porpoises in Japanese coastal waters and asks Her Majesty's Government to press for the permanent extension of the ban at this year's International Whaling Commission meeting in Glasgow.]
It is important that the House should have an opportunity to express its near-unanimous revulsion at the continuing slaughter of minke whales by the Japanese in the Antarctic and the slaughter of dolphins and porpoises. Prior to the International Whaling Commission meeting in Glasgow later this year, the House should have an opportunity to discuss that and next week would be a good time to start.

Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the Japanese Government are well aware of the concerns of the British Government, the House and the British people about Japanese whale and dolphin hunting practices. Through the International Whaling Commission, we have consistently opposed unjustified whaling for scientific purposes, and we shall continue to do so. There is no doubt about the stand that the British Government have consistently taken. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been strong in his approach to the matter.
Early-day motions are a means to enable the House to express its view. I have certainly noticed the large number of signatures to that early-day motion. I hope that that in itself will have its effect. The hon. Gentleman is being a little ingenious to suggest that early-day motions which attract a large number of signatures should then take up Government time. I can see how that practice could quickly be abused.

Sir Anthony Grant: Would it be sensible to have a debate, if not next week certainly before this Parliament ends, on the civil service? In recent years, there have been an increasing number of cases of dishonesty, culminating in the current scandal at the Department of Health. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this goes beyond mere party politics? No matter which party is in power, the proper government of this country depends on Ministers being able to rely on the honesty of their officials.

Mr. MacGregor: And certainly, too, being able to rely on the knowledge that there will not be deliberate leaks and things of that sort, which I think that my hon. Friend has in mind. I believe that it is widely condemned that documents are leaked and that clear use is then made of them when at the same time there are complaints about leaks from other sources. I agree with my hon. Friend but, as far as I understand it, the appropriate action has been taken by the appropriate authorities in that case.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House next week to make a statement arising out of the information given by top doctors yesterday to the Select Committee on Health? They are being forced into the position—arising out of implementating Government policy on waiting lists—of having to carry out minor operations and delay major operations, which could end up costing lives. Surely all hon. Members in the House want the truth. We would like the Secretary of State for Health to come here and clear up this matter.

Mr. MacGregor: We have been having a great number of debates about the health service, in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been making the position clear. As far as Select Committee reports are concerned, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the practice is for the Select Committee first to make its report, and the Government then make their response.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: In the light of the horrific level of terrorist violence in Northern Ireland, a bomb being placed in Whitehall this week and IRA demonstrations on the streets of London, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the business that he has announced for Monday 24 February will allow a

wide-ranging debate on the prevention of terrorism? If that is not the position, will he provide sufficient time for such a debate to take place?

Mr. MacGregor: I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that the business for Monday will allow for such matters to be raised.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Bearing in mind the fact that it was this Government who specifically excluded Lloyd's from the provisions of the Financial Services Act 1986, is not the Leader of the House duty bound to provide time for a debate on naked greed, dishonesty and fraud at Lloyd's, and how best to protect the names from the machinations of corrupt insiders?

Mr. MacGregor: I have already made it clear where the allegations should go in the first place. If there are allegations of criminal activity, those are matters for the police authorities and the Serious Fraud Office.

Sir Anthony Durant: Will my right hon. Friend look again at his response to the question about the Select Committee on Health, of which I am a member? Those who gave evidence were not certain of what they were saying about pressure on waiting lists. They said that they thought that there was pressure; they were not certain about it.

Mr. MacGregor: That shows the difficulties of responding to a demand for a statement on a matter that a Select Committee is considering thoroughly in the round, and why it is important to wait until the Select Committee reports.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Fortunately, the Select Committee will print its evidence. At that stage the House can make up its mind whether what the hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) says is true.
The Government intend yet again to tax the sick by raising prescription charges from £3·40 to £3·75. Is it not time that we had a debate on how we exempt from charges those who are just above income support level and those on invalidity benefit, who have to pay out an enormous amount from small incomes for prescriptions that they need every week? The same applies to the chronically sick and the mentally ill, who often cannot afford prescription charges. Instead of taxing the sick, is it not time that we debated what is happening to those who we should be helping?

Mr. MacGregor: On the first point, I hope that the hon. Lady will recognise that many people—doctors and others—working within the health service believe that the reforms are already having a beneficial effect.
I am glad that the hon. Lady has talked about prescription charges. Her remarks enable me to say that only one in six prescription items now has a prescription charge attached to it, whereas in 1979 it was one in three.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that on Wednesday, at the end of the debate on the recession, the Government's majority will apply and that the decision will endorse the comments that he made in response to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). I hope that he will check his response, because I am quite sure that it was not entirely accurate.


Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of the most important industries face crippling and insupportable increases in electricity prices, which have been imposed by people who have no interest in the national position, who have voted themselves obscenely large salary increases and who now threaten the very existence of industries which need to continue to export in the national interest? Can we not have a debate that is not disfigured by a Division, during which those who represent constituencies in which there are these important industries can reflect the urgent need to consider this issue, bearing in mind that these insupportable price increases are due to take effect on 1 April?

Mr. MacGregor: I repeat that, if we consider electricity prices overall, since privatisation there has been a reduction in real terms, from which many have benefited. There has been restructuring for some larger companies, and that is a matter for the regulatory authorities. The hon. Gentleman must find other ways of raising the matter than in a debate in Government time next week.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: As rumour has it—presumably through the usual channels—that today's main business has deliberately been made bipartisan so that Labour Members can go to a £500-a-head dinner tonight, it would be extremely helpful for Conservative Members to learn from my right hon. Friend when another of these dinners is taking place so that we can make arrangements to be in our constituencies working hard.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes his own point. I must in all fairness explain that today's Second Reading debate was not arranged for that reason. I think there is general agreement on the Bill—at least with the main Opposition party. Perhaps that is why few Labour Members will be present. I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to make his point about the fund-raising activities to which he referred.

Mr. Keith Mans: During next week's debate on employment and industrial relations, could particular emphasis be placed on the nuclear industry, the 120,000 jobs in the north-west that depend on it, and the effect on those jobs of any policy to phase out nuclear power—such as that suggested by Labour?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The impact of Labour policies on employment in several other areas could also be highlighted.

Mr. Ray Powell: Does the Leader of the House acknowledge the concern expressed in 10 early-day motions on the Shops Act 1950, and the necessity to change that legislation? If that cannot be achieved in the short time left to the present Government, at least a start should be made. The Leader of the House will have such opportunity to help ensure that next Friday, when my Bill, which is second on the list, could be debated.
If the right hon. Gentleman will use his influence to allow my Bill to go into Committee, a start could be made on changing a law that is the cause of much concern and distress. The present situation allows big business people to tear up contracts, compel workers to volunteer to work on Sunday on ordinary time, reduce double time and enhanced payments to staff employed for 20 years, and illegally open their shops. It is about time that the

Government helped—if only by assisting a Back Bencher to promote a Bill that the Government should have introduced since 1986.

Mr. MacGregor: We have debated that issue many times previously, and I do not want to discuss it now—except to say that I am sure that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that right hon. and hon. Members hold many different views on Sunday trading. A private Member's Bill is not a matter for me, and I could not influence its progress. Any right hon. or hon. Member who wants to object to the Bill, for whatever reason—if it has not been fully debated—can do so. It is not within my power to stop that.

Mr. James Arbuthnot: May we have an early debate on the employment of people in the House? The scandal of leaked documents in the health service has already been mentioned, but it seems that the person accused of that action was recommended for secondment to the Department of Health by a man named Mr. Gordon Best, who I understand is the political assistant to a member of Labour's Front Bench. That is a serious matter in relation to the use of stolen material in the House, so may we have an early debate on that important issue?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend may want to pursue that matter in other ways. I cannot give Government time to debating it next week.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the House have an early opportunity to debate the subject of motion No. 33 in the notices of motions in today's Order Paper? In a week in which we are again dealing with terrorism, I am convinced that the establishment of a Select Committee to scrutinise the affairs of the Northern Ireland Office and the activities of Government-appointed bodies in Northern Ireland would be an answer to terrorism, and would deal with the problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) drew attention.

Mr. MacGregor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that I have given a fair amount of time on the Floor of the House to Northern Ireland matters in recent weeks, and I continue to do so. The draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order will be before the House a week on Monday. We discussed before the suggestion for a Select Committee, and I explained why it would not be appropriate to act until there are further developments. There is the additional problem that only a few months remain of the life of this Parliament, and it is unlikely that we would be able to establish a Select Committee in that time.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Next Thursday we are to debate the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill. In the light of the shocking revelations that we have just heard about the research assistant to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), can my right hon. Friend tell me whether the hon. Member for Livingston will be able to use the opportunity of the debate on that Bill to apologise to the House about the disgraceful situation whereby he has been receiving stolen papers? Is it not an absolute disgrace, and should not this matter be explained here in the House?

Mr. MacGregor: My own view is that the hon. Gentleman has been running all these documents because


of the lack of credibility of the Opposition's health policy. We know very well that they would not spend any more money on the national health service. We know also—

Mr. Grocott: Let us check it with the voters.

Mr. MacGregor: No wonder the hon. Gentleman does not like this, because he is very embarrassed about it. We know very well that they would not spend any more money. We know that they have no proposals for proper reform of the health service. But, of course, it is a matter for the hon. Gentleman himself to decide what statements he wants to make.

Mr. Dave Nellist: It will not have gone unnoticed by the House or those outside it that the Leader of the House did not take the opportunity, when answering the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), to deny that the Government have plans to raise prescription charges to £3·75 an item within the next few days. Will he therefore arrange not just for a written answer, if that be the case, but for an oral statement to the House, because that is what Opposition Front-Bench Members normally would have demanded?
The Secretary of State for Health should not just give us platitudes about how many items are free from prescription. He should explain why already millions of people in the country should have to pay 1,700 per cent. more for prescription charges than they did in 1979. The Secretary of State ought to come to the Dispatch Box and announce the abolition of this disgraceful charge.

Mr. MacGregor: That is an extraordinary thing for the hon. Gentleman to say, because his party introduced the charges, the Opposition have not committed themselves to abolition of the charges, and in 1979 there were far more items subject to prescription charges than there are now. It is not a platitude to point out that only one in six prescription items is subject to a charge, because it is a very clear indication of what the Government have done to protect all those in various categories who do not have to pay prescription charges at all. It shows the caring approach that we have taken in that respect. The hon. Gentleman will find that the announcement about prescription charges is being made this afternoon exactly as it always has been, by way of a written answer. The position is perfectly clear and, in the normal way, the regulations will be laid shortly and are subject to the negative resolution procedure.

Mr. Rupert Allason: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there was grave disquiet on both sides of the House last week when the Government, late at night, in a debate lasting just an hour and a half, tried to slip past 450 million quid extra to the illegal budget of the European Community. That is not counting the additional money that was to go to the illegal budget under the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
Will my right hon. Friend agree to an urgent debate next week, taking account of the outrageous demands of Jacques Delors recently published? Can we next week have a full debate on exactly how many countries in Europe are net contributors to the European budget and whether it is simply Britain and Germany that are net contributors, with all the others having their hands in our pockets?

Mr. MacGregor: I can tell my hon. Friend straight away that there are three net contributors; France should be added to the two that he has mentioned. I think that that is fairly well known. Last week, we followed the normal practice, on top of a lot of debates that we have had on European Community budgets. I recognise that this is a most important matter—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made that very clear both this afternoon and in statements yesterday—but I think that it would be premature to debate the matter next week, not least because we have a lot of important business to do. There will be opportunities at the appropriate time, I have no doubt, to discuss these issues further.

Mr. Terry Lewis: Given that, in a few weeks' time, the right hon. and hon. Friends of the Leader of the House will be wall to wall in the north-west, and in the light of his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) about a debate on the national economy, may I ask the Leader of the House to consider arranging an economic debate about the north-west in the next few weeks?
The Bolton-Bury travel-to-work area, of which my constituency is part, has lost nearly 1,400 jobs since Christmas. Bury has the highest number of mortgage repossessions, and the 10 local authorities of Greater Manchester have been treated very badly in the poll tax arrangements for this year—the standard spending assessments and so forth. I think that that would be a very good subject for a debate that could be held before those Conservative Members start getting in my way in the north-west during the general election campaign.

Mr. MacGregor: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we look forward to debating the respective merits of the parties' policies as they affect the north-west whenever the time comes. When I have been in the north-west, as I have been a number of times recently, I have encountered considerable opposition to the Labour party's economic and tax and expenditure policies. We shall be checking that in due course.
Obviously, we shall be having debates on economic matters, but I cannot promise a debate on a specific region. The hon. Gentleman will have to find another way of securing a debate on the north-west.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Leader of the House look at early-day motion 442, in my name?
[That this House recognises with sadness and anger that the latest transfers to flags of convenience by British shipowners, Andrew Weir and Blue Star, will take the number of United Kingdom-registered ships over 500 gross registered tons to under 300 for the first time since records were kept; regrets the loss of still more jobs for British officers and ratings; condemns the flagrant disregard for national interest inherent in the run-down of the Merchant Navy; recalls with respect the service given to this country, in times of peace and war, by a great industry which the Tories have now decided is dispensable; and looks forward to the election of a government which will act to defend and expand upon the pitifully small number of Red Ensigns which the Tory brand of patriotism has allowed to survive on the seaways of the world.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman also look at early-day motion 618? That motion is in the name of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).


Both early-day motions draw attention to the fact that the United Kingdom-registered merchant fleet has now declined to fewer than 300 ships. Some of us find it very puzzling that a party that likes to cloak itself in the flag when that suits its purposes should display such consistent contempt for a flag that has served this country well—the red ensign.
Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on the subject? Does he recognise that it is a disaster for a maritime, mercantile nation to be reduced to having a merchant fleet that contains virtually no oceangoing vessels, and is made up almost exclusively of coasters and ferries? Does he accept that one of the Government's prime legacies will be the virtual eradication of the British merchant navy?

Mr. MacGregor: I have seen the early-day motions. As the hon. Gentleman will know, in recent years the Government have introduced a range of measures, including some financial concessions, to address specific difficulties within the shipping industry. We certainly acknowledge the contribution by the British merchant fleet both to the economy and to our national defence. The Government are considering separately the special role that merchant shipping plays in defence.

Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have an early opportunity to debate the textile industry? As the Leader of the House knows, Bradford—like other cities—employs more than 12,000 people directly in the industry, which makes it a very important one. Nationally, more than 400,000 people are involved in clothing and textiles.
If a debate took place, we could make it clear that the textile industry must not be sacrificed on the altar of agriculture during the GATT talks, and that provision must be made to ensure that the industry is retained if the talks break down, as they are currently doing. We could also invoke a discussion about the outrageous and misplaced claims from the Common Market for an increased budget. If such a budget were granted—as the Prime Minister seemed to suggest this afternoon—it would mean money being siphoned off from the United Kingdom, and, potentially, a risk to United Kingdom textile industry jobs.

Mr. MacGregor: What my right hon. Friend was making clear was that there was already scope within the guidelines—the Community ceilings—for increased expenditure. He was addressing the point that the further increases proposed by Mr. Delors were unnecessary. Obviously, we shall debate that issue; I have made that clear several times this afternoon. As the Delors plan has only just been published, however, I am sure that we shall all want to study it further before debating it.
As for the textile industry, I very much hope—as l have often said, and I think every hon. Member feels the same—that we shall reach a successful conclusion to the Uruguay round talks on the GATT. It is vital that we do so. The hon. Gentleman will know, however, that temporary arrangements have been made for the continuation of the multi-fibre arrangement in regard to textiles for the current year to cover the fact that agreement has not yet been reached.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the dramatic increase in unemployment in Northern Ireland, which now stands at 105,000? Does he know that 14·5 per cent. of the work force are jobless, that almost one in five men are unemployed, and that more job losses in my constituency are to be announced soon? Will the debate that has been arranged for next Wednesday be sufficiently wide to take account of the impact of and the responsibility for the job losses and the lack of inward investment that terrorism causes for us all? Will he convey to the Prime Minister the fact that those twin problems—terrorism and unemployment—require that he put his own firm hands to them? Any efforts by the Prime Minister to resolve them will have our full support.

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot say exactly what next week's motion will be; that is, of course, a matter for the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman has made a very fair point about the impact that terrorism has on inward investment. It is very noticeable indeed that, because of the very attractive economic conditions that we have created, Great Britain is a major Community beneficiary from inward investment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows of the very high proportion of Japanese investment and of the fact that Great Britain is regarded as the best Community area for German investment. There is clear evidence that this is so. Whether the hon. Gentleman's very fair point about terrorism can be made in next week's debate I do not know, but it probably can.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I, for the third time, ask for a debate on Volvo of Sweden's asset-stripping operations in the United Kingdom? Is not it rather odd that Volvo will not tell the people of Workington the full truth about why it is closing the bus plant in Workington? Yesterday, I was able to establish that Volvo has received from London Transport an order worth £5 million. It has not made a public statement about the receipt of that order, as it knows that such a statement would unsettle the people of Workington, who are faced with extensive redundancy as a result of the closure of Europe's most modern bus plant.

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot comment on the particular issue relating to Volvo, as that is a matter for the company itself. As I have said to the hon. Gentleman before, I cannot find specific Government time for a debate on this issue. It is for him to use the normal means of raising the matter.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the Leader of the House consider for next week a statement on the terrible accident at Monkwearmouth pit? Will he join me in congratulating the rescue services, the ambulance service, the hospitals and the doctors on the marvellous job they did?

Mr. MacGregor: I certainly express condolences to all those who have been affected, and I endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said. All that I have seen suggests that those services did an absolutely splendid job, as they always do in such situations. I am sure that the whole House agrees with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ron Brown: As the Leader of the House knows, tax evasion is a growth industry for the rich in this country, and provides jobs for a whole host of


accountants and lawyers, yet people who cannot pay the poll tax are repeatedly hounded in Scotland and gaoled in England and Wales. This is an absolute disgrace. Of course, the Government will maintain that people must pay their taxes. If that is the case, will the Government have a word with the monarch and the deadbeats of the royal family and ask them to pay their fair share?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows well that we do not refer in those terms to members of the royal family. I ask him to withdraw the word "deadbeats".

Mr. Brown: Hangers-on, the unemployed, unemployable people—

Mr. Speaker: I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the word "deadbeats"?

Mr. Brown: Under protest, I withdraw "deadbeats". I would like to find an equivalent Scots word.

Mr. David Sumberg: May I support the plea by the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) for a debate on industry in the north-west? Such a debate would give me an opportunity to point out that in the recent CBI survey business leaders and business managers in the north-west expressed confidence about the coming few months, and we would have a chance to prove the truth of the old adage that what Manchester thinks today the rest of the country thinks tomorrow.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is quite right to point out what business leaders have been saying, and I am sure that he will make the point admirably in the coming weeks and months.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Could my right hon. Friend urgently organise a debate next week on national health service trust hospitals? Would it be possible during that debate for all hon. Members to agree that the trusts have been extremely successful? Some members of the Labour party in my constituency are fearful for their jobs in these trust hospitals and know what a good job the trusts are doing—they want that fear removed in view of the remote possibility of us having a Labour Government.

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is entirely right about national health service trust hospitals. The best way to remove that fear is to ensure that we do not have a Labour Government.

Amphibious Forces

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Government's future plans for amphibious forces.
The White Paper, "Britain's Defence for the 90s", set out the changes in the size and shape of our armed forces as a consequence of the radical change in the world situation. It recognised the increasing importance, with lower force levels, of greater flexibility and mobility. It made it clear that the Royal Marines will retain their role as the principal infantry element in the amphibious forces and that we would be addressing the need for new specialist shipping and equipment that they require for their tasks.
These have three principal elements. First, there are the landing ships logistic which, by beach landing forces, vehicles and stores, played a significant part in the conflicts in the South Atlantic and the Gulf. We shall maintain five of these vessels. The House will recall that one of them, Sir Galahad, is a new ship constructed following the tragic loss of its predecessor in the Falklands, and that another, Sir Tristram, has been substantially rebuilt. We now intend to process a fundamental overhaul and re-equipment of the remaining three which will enable us to operate them well into the next century.
The second category are the Royal Marines principal transport and landing ships, Fearless and Intrepid. I can now tell the House that we have awarded contracts for project definition for replacements for these ships. These contracts have gone to YARD—the Yarrow Admiralty Research Department—in Glasgow, Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. in Barrow, and Dowty-Sema Limited in Esher. Two further study contracts are due to be placed shortly for critical aspects of their communications.
I turn now to the third element, the commando and helicopter-carrier ship. I can confirm that we are now proceeding to invite tenders for the design and build of a new helicopter carrier. This ship, which we have previously referred to as an aviation support ship, will be suitable for a variety of tasks in and out of area. Its primary role is to achieve the fastest delivery ashore of its entire embarked amphibious landing force.
These proposals in total amount to about £500 million and provide significant opportunities for our shipbuilding industry and the many other companies which contribute the equipments that will be incorporated in these ships.
My statement today forms part of our wider commitment to providing the Royal Navy with modern and capable equipment. The House will agree that this programme ensures that the Royal Navy in the 1990s and beyond will exemplify our intention to provide armed forces that are flexible, mobile and smaller but better equipped.

Mr. Roland Boyes: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to look into a matter which is not too important? The Annunciator has carried a message all day saying that the subject of the statement was helicopter carriers, but the statement dealt with amphibious forces. I


make no criticism whatever of the Minister as I am sure that he was unaware of the difference—as I was—but I wonder if it could be looked into.

Mr. Speaker: I think that I may be able to help. I was originally told that the statement was about amphibious forces, but that it was then changed to helicopter carriers. I think that is the misunderstanding, but I am assured that it is the same statement.

Mr. Boyes: Nevertheless, it puts us at some disadvantage.
Will the Minister accept that I welcome today's statement, as will many shipyard workers? It represents a step forward in the planned procurement of new amphibious forces. Labour's view is that we should maintain an amphibious capacity, including Royal Marine commandos and their specialist equipment.
I am sure that the Minister is aware of the concern of the Norwegian Government on this matter. Can he describe the changes made in his plans as a result of the changing nature of the threat?
Can the Minister confirm that invitations for tenders for a new aviation support ship were issued on 24 October 1988? On 1 May 1990 the Secretary of State told the Select Committee on Defence that there were some difficulties which needed to be resolved in relation to the aviation support ship. Will the Minister tell the House what those difficulties were and how they have been resolved?
Will the Minister also confirm that the Ministry of Defence is planning for the tenders to be returned in the autumn of this year and that final orders will be placed in the autumn of next year?
We welcome the overhaul of the landing ships logistic. Can the Minister state when the overhaul programme will start? We also welcome the awarding of contracts for project definition replacements for Fearless and Intrepid. We note the previous commitment by the Minister on 15 October to award these contracts last November. Can he say when he will now place the order?
Will the Minister accept Labour's total commitment to an amphibious capability? I am sure that the whole House will agree that it is a vital requirement for the proper level of defence, both for this country and to make our proper contribution to the defence of NATO.

Mr. Clark: I certainly welcome the hon. Gentleman's statement and his reiteration of his party's commitment to this important element in our overall service capability. I would not wish to appear ungracious, but I am curious as to how these various commitments on the part of the Labour party, which accumulate every time we debate this subject, can be reconciled with the decision of his party conference and the wish of the majority of members of the Labour party to cut defence expenditure by 27 per cent. I do not think, however, that this will ever be put to the test, so we shall remain in ignorance on this curious mathematical anomaly.
As for the reorientation of the operational duties of the amphibious forces, it is true that the urgency of the north Norway flank has diminished, but the Royal Marines have already shown their immense flexibility in all sorts of roles out of area, such as aid to the civil power, assistance with hurricane damage in Pakistan, assistance with Operation Haven in Turkey, and so on.
As to the order dates, I hope that we shall be in a position to order this in the autumn of next year, but that depends on a thorough scrutiny and evaluation of the tender process.

Mr. Michael Mates: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement which is an earnest of the statements that he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have been making for the past two years, that although our services are to become smaller they will be better equipped, and this will allow us to go forward over the next decade with superbly equipped troops, although fewer in number. Can my right hon. Friend say how many helicopters it is suggested should be on this ship, and whether it will be able to provide perhaps a company lift of marines, which would make realistic the getting ashore of a complete commando in a difficult scenario?
Will my right hon. Friend not be quite so shy about speculating as to how on earth the Labour party's welcome for a further £500 million expenditure sits with its determination to take £6 billion off? I know that it is an unlikely occurrence, but my right hon. Friend could put a little more thought into where the cuts would come—in other men, aeroplanes, tanks, or what?

Mr. Clark: I did not want to look a handsome gift horse in the mouth quite so flagrantly in my response to the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), but I endorse everything that my hon. Friend has said.
As to the helicopter strength on the carrier, we expect that it will initially be equipped with 12 Sea Kings which will be able to land the first wave simultaneously. That will be a great enhancement of our amphibious capability. As my hon. Friend knows, until this point we would have had to bring a CVS, a proper aircraft carrier, close in-shore, with all the attendant risks. This means that there will now be a dedicated ship to fulfil this function.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I join in the general welcome of the announcement of the helicopter carrier and the enhanced flexibility and mobility that it will bring? Can the Minister say a little more about when it is planned that the helicopter carrier will come into service? In relation to the helicopters to be carried, the Minister will be aware that the Ministry of Defence contracts bulletin of 8 January refers not only to Sea Kings but to the EH101 as an alternative. Can he give the House a little more information about that alternative and when the matter is likely to be resolved?

Mr. Clark: I hope very much that this ship will be operational in the second half of the decade. I would not wish to be more precise than that at the present time because there is a great deal of detailed work still to go into it. As to the transition from Sea King to EH101, that again depends on the development of the 101 aircraft because the anti-submarine 101 is our first priority and it is for that type that initial orders have been placed.

Dame Janet Fookes: As a vociferous critic of the delays in replacing our amphibious craft, may I now warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on the news this afternoon, as it will indicate the very firm role that the Royal Marines will continue to play in our defences? May I also express the hope that this will


be good news for Devonport dockyard which, in the fullness of time, will, I hope, be called upon to refit this craft?

Mr. Clark: I would not want to anticipate the refit programme for a vessel that has not yet been launched, but I echo everything that my hon. Friend has said about the Royal Marines. She and I share representation of the city where the Royal Marine Commando is based, and I feel sure that it will be widely welcomed there.

Mr. Ted Garrett: Will the Minister accept it from me that not everyone in the Labour party is opposed to spending important and valuable money on the defence of the nation? Some of us have been strongly consistent in this.
Will the Minister give some guidance to the House as to the thinking that brought this about? An exercise some years ago, when most of the territorial forces were moved from the United Kingdom to northern Germany, resulted in problems relating to moving men and equipment into the forward planning battle areas. The ships that had been hired were totally inadequate for the job. Has the lesson now been learnt that it is important to build these ships and also to have them manned by the Royal Navy so that we have the professionalism that is necessary should they ever be used?
Can the Minister give an assurance that Swan Hunter in Wallsend will be invited to tender—something that will be very welcome in the north-east—bearing in mind the valiant work that they did in rebuilding the Sir Tristram and the Sir Galahad?

Mr. Clark: Most certainly, I can confirm that Swan Hunter will be invited to tender, and I very much hope that they will do so.
I would like to say also how much I personally welcome what the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) said at the beginning of his remarks. I take his point about transport, but that is a different issue from the specialised kind of vessel that we are talking about today. I mentioned earlier that we will end up with five completely refurbished or new LSLs, and that is a completely adequate strength to give a lift for beach landing capability. For heavy transport of vehicles and men, it has been found more economic and practical to take ships up from trade. This is a specialised vessel dedicated to a beach landing or an air-delivered strike of infantry from helicopters.

Mr. Cecil Franks: Together with many other hon. Members, I warmly welcome what the Minister has said this afternoon—not least that Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. will be among those invited to tender for the aircraft support ship.
I wonder if I could possibly assist the Minister in response to the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates). I noted that the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) also welcomed the statement. I note that my right hon. Friend the Minister said that the overall cost will be £500 million. Conservative Members know, as do the general public, that the Government are committed to building the fourth Trident submarine. We know, too, that the Opposition are committed to cancelling it. The cost of the fourth Trident submarine will be £500 million. QED.

Mr. Speaker: That is a little wide of the statement.

Mr. Clark: The Opposition bring this kind of inquisition upon themselves. If we were to subtract every system, ship, store establishment and army system that they have already endorsed, and to which they have committed themselves, we find that, by implication, they are effectively scrapping everything else.

Mr. David Trimble: Presumably the replacements for Fearless and Intrepid will be ships of a similar capacity and type, and will serve with the aviation support vessel, making a total of three. Is it necessary to have all those? Surely the need could be met by one or two ships along the lines of the US Tarawa class.
With regard to the aviation support ship, the Minister will know that Harland and Wolff in Belfast recently successfully completed work on an aviation training ship. I hope that, consequently, Harland and Wolff will be among those invited to tender.

Mr. Clark: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but whether Harland and Wolff tender is a matter for the company. I reject the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the ships are not needed. I certainly would not want to downgrade to the standards of the second-line ships in the United States navy. The ships' predecessors, Intrepid and Fearless, served successfully for a long time, and played a key part in the last major military operation that the United Kingdom fought on its own.

Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher): Does the Minister agree that the next generation of ships will very much depend on the high technology on board? I am grateful to him for announcing that a company in my constituency, Dowty-Sema Limited, is at the forefront in the project. Dowty-Sema is probably the world leader in project definition. Its role in replacing and increasing the technological competence of our ships, especially assault ships, is welcome in Esher, and I am sure that it will be good news for the Royal Navy.

Mr. Clark: I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend has said. When I consider the list of subcontractors available to supply and tender for systems in the project, I am impressed by the sheer richness and diversity that British manufacturing industry can still offer.

Mr. Neville Trotter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this announcement is splendid news, both for the Royal Navy and for the country? Does it not prove that, unlike the Labour party, the Government are determined to maintain this country's defence capability in a world that continues to be uncertain and dangerous? The prospect of a £500 million order is most welcome in the shipyards of this country, especially Swan Hunter, with its splendid record of building carriers and amphibious ships. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a great prospect of work for that yard?

Mr. Clark: As I said to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett), I look forward to a Swan Hunter tender. I am grateful for what has been said. We made the commitments in the original "Options" statement, and, although we cannot do everything at once, things are maturing precisely as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House that they would.


In round terms, the amphibious ships will be able to offer approximately 2,500 jobs each over three years, and I expect the helicopter carrier to offer approximately 1,500 jobs over the same period.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: Like my hon. Friends, I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I should be grateful to know, in due course, whether my right hon. Friend thinks that the number of jobs that he has suggested may be somewhat conservative. I am sure that the defence industry, and all the contractors, will warmly welcome the work available from the contracts, as do many hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Clark: That is a fundamental point. The figures that I mentioned involve only the workload and the jobs expectancy in the yards. Of course, there will be an immense initial spin-off in jobs in all the subcontracts which will provide systems such as gearboxes, communications, navigation aids, cabling, auxiliary propulsion and so on, on their own premises. I should think that, at the most conservative estimate, one could double the original jobs total.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Your task, Mr. Speaker, is being made easier by the fact that only one Back-Bench Labour Member has sought to ask a question on this crucial subject.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the announcement is good news for south Hampshire, for two reasons? First, local companies, including Vosper Thornycroft and GEC-Marconi, will be eligible to bid for part of the work. Secondly, the Government are keeping faith with the Royal Navy in providing it with the best equipment. That will ensure that, under the Conservative Government, the Royal Navy will continue to offer a first-class rewarding and stimulating career.

Mr. Clark: That is absolutely right. The Royal Navy will have much important work to do in the next 20 years, and I welcome my hon. Friend's endorsement of our determination to provide it with the best equipment for that task.
Yes, it is a pity that Labour Members, whose constituencies will undoubtedly be affected by the good news, have not seen fit to come to the House and welcome it. I fear that that betrays an insidious failing of the Labour party—I except the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) from this—in that it has a particular distaste for good news of any kind.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend will know that the Ministry of Defence and certain senior naval officers are keen on collocation. Has he given any thought to Dorset's bid to have a helicopter carrier ship based at Portland, next to the Portland helicopter repair facilities? It would be close to Bovington, for training, and Holton Heath, where the amphibious forces are now based. It would also be close to the wonderful shipyards at Portland, which would do all the regular maintenance on the equipment—and Dowty-Sema and other defence equipment manufacturers are right alongside. Surely my right hon. Friend can tell the House now that Portland will be the home base for this wonderful helicopter support ship.

Mr. Clark: I am full of admiration for the way in which my hon. Friend gets his claims in so early, and extols the virtues of his constituency in all its many aspects. However, I think that the House will forgive me if I feel that it would be premature to specify where a ship that has not yet been built is to be based.

Mr. Michael Colvin: My right hon. Friend and some of my other hon. Friends have been speculating about how a future Labour Government might find the money to pay for a £500 million project. May I ask my right hon. Friend to speculate on an even more remote possibility—the election of a Liberal Democrat Government? How would such a Government pay for the project, in view of the Liberal Democrats' commitment to reduce our defence expenditure by 50 per cent.?

Mr. Clark: That is true. I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) did not digress on that subject. Using the rough rule-of-thumb calculation that I made earlier, when I subtracted the Labour party's total commitments to find out what was left, I should say that the Liberal Democrats have already overrun their overdraft ceiling.

Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will be aware how welcome his statement will be in Scotland—first, because 45 Commando is based in Tayside and, secondly, because the Scottish shipbuilding industry has a major contribution to make.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that every vote cast for the socialist nationalists in Scotland will be a vote cast against the best interests of 45 Commando? No orders for ships would come to Scotland from the Ministry of Defence if the nationalists had their way.

Mr. Clark: I am afraid that that looks like the truth. In spite of the commitment made by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington, I must in all candour tell him that if he ever had the chance, I do not think that he would be able to sustain it—the other members of his party would not allow him to do so. That fact is recognised by many people who work in the defence industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) should repeat in his constituency what he has just said.

Mr. John Wilkinson: May I express my satisfaction that in the statement my right hon. Friend has redeemed the Government's declaration of intent in their White Paper "Britain's Defence for the 90s" to provide forces that are more mobile, more flexible and better equipped, and thereby better equipped to meet all eventualities in a highly unpredictable world? Will the three landing ships logistics, that are to be refurbished be out to tender for all the yards, namely, the naval constructors as well as the naval dockyards? Does that accord with the Government's policy for refits of Her Majesty's ships generally?

Mr. Clark: I am very glad to have the opportunity to confirm that. Although it is still some distance away, I regard that phase as being especially important in providing the full capability, as we undertook to do and on which my hon. Friend has congratulated us.

Mr. Boyes: I am greatly surprised by the criticism of the Labour party we have heard this afternoon because the Government have left such a big gap in our amphibious


forces for so long. I remind the Minister and the Secretary of State of what the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) said on 31 March 1976. He told the House:
it is impossible for an Opposition to draw up a detailed and fully-costed defence policy when in Opposition. Such a process can be carried out only after full consultation with the Services, with our Allies and with industry."—[Official Report, 31 March 1976; Vol. 908, c. 1353.]
We will do just that in the next few weeks when we form the new Government.

Mr. Clark: There is nothing personal in the criticisms that I addressed to the hon. Gentleman. Our criticism is based on two factors. First—this is not a slight matter—only one Member of Parliament from a constituency that will benefit from the announcement has bothered to turn up and welcome it—

Mr. Don Dixon: Two.

Mr. Clark: Two—I withdraw that comment. Not one, but two. Secondly, not one member of the shadow Cabinet has, to my knowledge, repudiated the repeated resolution and direction of the Labour party conference to cut defence spending by 27 per cent.

Department of Health (Leaks)

Mr. Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. You will recall that in business questions last week, I asked the Leader of the House whether it was possible to have a debate on the number of leaks coming out of the Department of Health and going straight to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). You will be aware that a Mr. Pashley has been caught as the mole and that a Mr. Graham Best, who is an adviser to the hon. Member for Livingston, is clearly implicated with Mr. Pashley. Have you received a request from the hon. Member for Livingston, as the shadow health spokesman, to make a personal statement bearing in mind his at least indirect implication in the crime?

Mr. Speaker: I heard that this matter was raised with the Leader of the House. I have received no such request from the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook).

Royal Assent

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Consolidated Fund Act 1992
2. Stamp Duty (Temporary Provisions) Act 1992
3. Severn Bridges Act 1992
2. Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992
5. Social Security Administration Act 1992
6. Social Security (Consequential Provisions) Act 1992
7. Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992
8. Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992
9. Social Security (Consequential Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Act 1992
10. British Railways Act 1992

BILL PRESENTED

COLD WEATHER CREDITS

Mr. John McFall, supported by Mr. Edward O'Hara, Mr. Nicol Stephen, Mr. William McKelvey, Ms. Alice Mahon, Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie, Mr. John Battle, Mr. Dennis Turner, Mr. Malcolm Bruce and Mrs. Irene Adams, presented a Bill to provide for credits to be paid from the National Insurance Fund to low income households during winter months to compensate for additional fuel consumption as a result of climatic conditions; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 February and to be printed. [Bill 77.]

Orders of the Day — Army Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Minister, I invite the House to look at the Bill and to see that it concerns the Ulster Defence Regiment being brought more fully into the Army by being merged with the Royal Irish Rangers. This is a narrow debate which is not connected to general Army matters such as "Options for Change".

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill concerns the future of a major element of the security forces in Northern Ireland. The House is all too well aware, especially perhaps from recent events, why we need to maintain and deploy forces on the present scale in that part of our country.
Our forces are deployed there simply because we are totally and absolutely committed—I think that I speak for the whole House—to preserving the rule of law throughout the United Kingdom. There is no other reason. The rule of law in a democracy such as ours means that all citizens should be able to go about their lawful business peacefully and without fear of violence. It means that the wishes of the people of Northern Ireland about their future, democratically expressed, must prevail. No act of terrorist violence can be allowed to shake the commitment of Parliament to those principles. It is essential, therefore, that we continue to maintain and deploy sufficient forces to protect the vast majority of peaceful and law-abiding people in Northern Ireland against the continuing threat of terrorism, whether from republican or loyalist groups.
The violence which the security forces seek to prevent cuts at the whole community of law-abiding citizens of both traditions in Northern Ireland. It may, as we have surely seen in recent weeks and all too often in recent years, leave another passer-by maimed, another wife widowed or another child orphaned. It may wreck another hotel, factory or shop, destroying jobs and discouraging the investment that is needed. All such violence leaves in its wake only tragedy and suffering. It will achieve nothing for any cause which the perpetrators may espouse.
All the security forces in Northern Ireland have a vital role to play in countering terrorism. Acts of terrorist violence, whatever their alleged political motive, are crimes. They must be treated as such. It is for the police to take the lead in dealing with crime. Clearly, however, for all its dedication and skill, the Royal Ulster Constabulary needs major support from the armed forces in its efforts to ensure that the terrorists will not succeed. For over 20 years now successive British Governments have committed a major part of our armed forces to Northern Ireland to support the RUC. That support will of course continue for as long as it is needed.
The role of the security forces is to prevent terrorist crimes from taking place, as far as possible, and when crimes have been committed, to seek out the perpetrators and deal with them in accordance with the law. That task makes heavy demands on all members of the security

forces day in and day out. The highest standards of training and personal conduct are required—so, too, is courage in dealing with people who are ruthless. I pay tribute to the bravery which all members of the security forces so regularly display in Northern Ireland, often in ways that do not come to public notice at all.
There are three main elements to the forces that support the RUC. There are six regular infantry battalions serving on long tours of 30 months, and four on short six-month tours. There are then the support and specialist units, including Royal Navy vessels and helicopter support from the Royal Air Force as well as from the Army. There are, of course, the 6,000 or so men and women of the Ulster Defence Regiment.
The armed forces contribution amounts in total to about 17,000 service personnel actually deployed in Northern Ireland. The number of troops there is kept under constant review and we make adjustments to force levels as circumstances require. Since December 1990, we have deployed significant reinforcements on nine occasions, including the period running up to last Christmas, for example. Most recently, as the House will be aware, the second battalion of the Queen's Regiment has just been deployed to provide additional support to the existing forces.
The Ulster Defence Regiment continues to be a vital element in the security arrangements which I have just been describing. The House will recall that we announced last summer, in the Command Paper "Britain's Army for the 90s", our intention to bring the UDR more fully into the Army by merging it with the Royal Irish Rangers.
The Bill provides the necessary legal framework for that merger to take place. I should like to explain to the House something of our thinking about that merger. Several considerations led the Army to propose it, and the Government to endorse and support that proposal.
The UDR is the main focus of our attention today, but let me say a word first about the other partner to the merger. The conclusion was reached in the Army's restructuring exercise that, in the best interests of the Army as a whole, the Royal Irish Rangers would give up one of their two battalions. I do not suppose that that conclusion was particularly welcome to them, any more than similar conclusions were welcome to other regiments.
The considerations affecting the UDR were, of course, rather different. The international changes that have dictated reductions elsewhere in the Army do not apply to counter-terrorist efforts in Northern Ireland. So long as the terrorist threat persists at its present level, we shall continue to need the services of the men and women—more than 10 per cent. of the total—who currently serve in the UDR, both part-time and full-time.
We expect to continue to need all those people to perform the varied tasks that they undertake at present: foot patrols, vehicle patrols, as well as some helicopter-borne operations; the operation of vehicle check points; searches; static guard duties; and quick reaction operations following terrorist attacks. The RUC and the rest of the Army could not sustain their current effort without the continuing involvement of the UDR in all those activities.
UDR duties can often be routine and uneventful, but in many cases the UDR has saved lives by deterring or preventing terrorist attacks, finding and seizing terrorist weapons and arresting suspected terrorists.

Mr. James Molyneaux: Will the Minister of State assure the House that in no sense is there a hidden agenda, particularly with regard to the future of the part-time element of the Ulster Defence Regiment? Will he also assure us that nothing will be done to reduce the strength or to limit the role of that part-time element?

Mr. Hamilton: I can certainly give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. There is no hidden agenda whatsoever for any of those moves. They are done for military reasons and to give us a more professional unit than we have had in the past. The number of UDR part-timers relative to the overall number in the UDR has been declining and it is likely that that decline will continue. It is not a sharp decline but the decline has been steady over the years. The ratio of permanent to part-time cadre will continue to change in favour of permanent cadre. We do not seek to get rid of UDR part-timers, as they are an important element of the security forces in Northern Ireland. They give us a reserve, because they can be called up for full-time activity, as happened following the recent terrorist outrages in central Belfast.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister give a figure? He says that the number of part-timers is going down. To what degree is that happening? Does the right hon. Gentleman prophesy that their number will continue to decline? Does he agree with what his senior colleague, the Secretary of State for Defence, said to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and me—that eventually there may be no part-time UDR?

Mr. Hamilton: I acknowledge that there has been a decline in the number of part-timers in the UDR and we consider that the number will continue to decline. Nevertheless, if one extrapolates from the graph of the decline in the numbers of part-timers, one sees that it will take many years before we reach the point where there are no part-timers at all. We would be most concerned if we reached that point, because the part-time element of the UDR is an effective reserve that can be called up, as it was the other day, to provide a cushion and deal with surges in commitments.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Is the Minister aware that when his comments are read back in Northern Ireland they will cause real concern? They could be interpreted as a sign that the part-time element is being phased out completely. It is clear that, under the Government's control, a steady reduction has taken place in the part-time element of the UDR and the Minister has told us that that will continue. There will be great concern that the Bill is, in effect, part of that sad and cruel betrayal of a regiment that has stood in the front line of the battle against terrorism.

Mr. Hamilton: I hope that I can give every reassurance possible. I am simply saying that it would be unrealistic to say that the decline in the number of part-timers in the UDR would suddenly stop—I do not believe that it will. That slight but steady erosion will continue. We are committed to having a part-time UDR. We very much value it, and we have proved recently how extremely useful part-timers are in giving us a reserve capability when terrorist incidents such as those that we have seen recently occur. I sincerely hope that the part-time UDR will

continue, but it is unrealistic to say that it will maintain its existing numbers, because there has been a decline in the past few years.

Mr. Molyneaux: Will the Minister, therefore, remove any possible suspicions that a plot is afoot by launching a campaign to encourage recruitment into the part-time element of the Ulster Defence Regiment?

Mr. Hamilton: We constantly look for recruits for permanent and part-time cadres, and that will continue. I see no changes there. It would be unrealistic of me to pretend that we shall maintain the present number of part-timers, but we value them very much. They are an essential part of the UDR as it stands and the Bill caters for them.

Rev. William McCrea: Perhaps the Minister will help the House by informing us exactly how much has been spent by the Ministry of Defence in advertising for part-time members of the UDR in the past two years.

Mr. Hamilton: I do not have that figure at my fingertips, but I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman a response when, with the leave of the House, I wind up the debate later this evening.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Has an assessment been carried out to establish the reasons for the decline in the part-time element of the UDR?

Mr. Hamilton: I cannot give an answer to that either, but I shall return to it in my winding-up speech, if that opportunity occurs.
In carrying out those tasks, which are often dangerous, UDR soldiers use the same skills and equipment as the rest of the Army. It is common practice for units of the UDR and of other Army regiments to be deployed together on the same operations. The vast majority of UDR operations, as for the rest of the Army, are carried out to meet specific RUC requirements. All operations need RUC approval and Army patrols are accompanied by the RUC whenever possible.
As we do not expect the nature of those military duties to change, it may well be asked, "Why change the UDR?" The regiment is, after all, well established now. It has served Northern Ireland for almost 22 years with distinction and courage. The bravery of the UDR has been second to none. We think of its casualties: 244 of its members or ex-members killed—"murdered" is the right word—many of them off-duty; and some hundreds seriously wounded. We think of the bravery and resilience of the families, and we think of the loyalty and affection that all officers, soldiers and their families feel for their regiment.
With those thoughts in mind, it would be wrong to make changes to the UDR's structure unless we genuinely believe—as we do—that they are in the best interests of all the men and women who come forward to serve in the regiment, and in the best interests of Northern Ireland.
The UDR has, of course, been changing and developing ever since its creation in 1970. As originally conceived, it was to have been an almost entirely part-time reserve, available for a limited range of emergency services. It is now much more professional and better trained than it was at the beginning.
Furthermore, the UDR has now been on continuous active service for a longer period than any other Army unit since the Napoleonic era. Although the total numbers have varied, the permanent cadre of the UDR has continued to grow over the years. It is now slightly over 50 per cent. of the total strength. Many of the UDR's soldiers have served previously in the Regular Army.
The UDR has, by virtue of its continuous deployment and the vital security role that it has played, certainly earned its place as an integral part of the British Army.

Mr. James Kilfedder: The Minister has given a glowing testimony to the men and women who have served in the Ulster Defence Regiment for so many years in the most appalling circumstances. Therefore, does he not think that it is a betrayal of all their service and dedication to take their name away—a name which, he has said, occupies an honoured position in the annals of military history? Is he aware that, for years, the IRA and its sympathisers have been seeking the destruction and obliteration of the UDR?

Mr. Hamilton: I have talked to a number of members of the UDR, both officers and those from other ranks, about the changes. I think that they welcome the opportunities that we are creating. I think that, unfortunately. UDR members have felt themselves to be the poor relations in the British Army in the past, but they now see themselves as being much more fully integrated into the Regular Army. That is a tribute to their professionalism and an acknowledgement of the fact that they are professional troops. I believe that they welcome the opportunity to serve in other areas—it is nice to have that opportunity. If someone originally joins the UDR on the basis that he was to live and serve in Northern Ireland, it is nice if he is then told that he can serve in a Regular Army unit and travel to places all over the world if he wants a break or a change in career. It is good that such opportunities, which were not previously open to members of the UDR, should be available now.

Mr. Michael Mates: I hesitate to interrupt my right hon. Friend, as I know that he has much more to tell us. However, lest people listening to the debate should think that the five interventions that we have had are typical of what is felt on the issue, I should tell my right hon. Friend that not only has the colonel of the Royal Irish Rangers appeared before the Select Committee on Defence and warmly welcomed the changes, but so have—

Rev. William McCrea: Listen to the Back-Bench brigadier!

Mr. Mates: No, he is not a brigadier, he is a general—to give him his due, he is the assistant chief to the general staff and a very distinguished Northern Irish officer.

Rev. William McCrea: It is you we are talking about.

Mr. Mates: The part-time and full-time members of the UDR have welcomed the changes—

Rev. William McCrea: Rubbish.

Mr. Mates: Oh yes; they have done so, as they know that their career prospects will be increased, as do those in the Royal Irish Rangers in the Regular Army, who are looking forward to working with residents of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hamilton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—that is the impression that I have received. Clearly, not 100 per cent. of the people want change, but the same is true of many different elements of the results of "Options for Change". We know that some people do not want to amalgamate with other units—that is true across the whole of the British Army—but a substantial number of UDR members, both officers and other ranks, welcome the change and realise that it is in the best interests of both the regiments involved and the British Army as a whole and can only enhance the professional way in which terrorism is tackled in Northern Ireland.
However, the UDR is still to an extent separate, distinct and somewhat apart from the rest of the Army, which has often been to its disadvantage. Rightly or wrongly, some of its members have felt that they were perceived, and perhaps treated, as if they were in some sense "second class". Other developments have accentuated the UDR's difference with the rest of the Army. It has been labelled, to its great distress, as "sectarian"—despite the fact that its membership once included many Catholics, despite continuing efforts to recruit more Catholics and despite all the regiment's efforts to protect the entire community even-handedly.
The overwhelming concern since 1970 has been to serve the community, the whole community, of both religious traditions.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Is not the decline in the number of Roman Catholics in the UDR, from—I think—18 per cent. when the regiment was formed in 1969 to about 3 per cent. now, largely due to a campaign of murder, intimidation, pressure and harassment by the IRA and its sympathisers?

Mr. Hamilton: It is—we can largely attribute the decline to that. The oppressive campaign has picked on the Catholics. The difficulty of so many Catholics in the UDR is that they live in Catholic communities, where they are much more vulnerable to other members who live in a community that might do more to protect them. That has made life difficult for them, and it is most regrettable that such a change has taken place. We shall continue to do everything that we can to reverse that trend and ensure that more members of the Catholic community join the UDR. I am not saying that that will be easy, but one of our aims should remain to recruit more Catholics into the UDR, and I hope that the proposed changes will help us to achieve that. I am not saying that, as a result of the proposed amalgamation, there will be a dramatic change in the percentage of Catholics—although there will be an increase in the regiment as a whole, as the Royal Irish Rangers now have a much higher percentage of Catholics in their ranks. However, not all of them come from Northern Ireland; a number of them are recruited on the mainland of Great Britain.
The Ulster Defence Regiment members have no wish to be treated as some sort of political football. They want to get on with the job. They want to make the greatest possible contribution to the defeat of terrorism, whether from loyalist or republican groups. Against that background, we reached the conclusion that the UDR could only stand to benefit from closer integration with the Regular Army, by merging with the Royal Irish Rangers to form a new infantry regiment of the line.
The Royal Irish Rangers are uniquely well placed to help to bring the UDR more fully into the Army. They have close links with Northern Ireland, and a recruiting base throughout the British isles. The merger will provide an opportunity to enhance still further the professionalism and effectiveness that the UDR has already achieved. There will be an opportunity for a mutual exchange of experience and personnel between the two elements of the new regiment. The integration of training, and a common regimental approach, will improve the career and promotion prospects of members of the present UDR.
The proposal is to merge the two regiments on 1 July. The recommended name for the new regiment is the Royal Irish Regiment. That was the agreed recommendation of the two existing regiments. I know that some will regret the loss of the name "Ulster" from the title—the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) mentioned that—but the new regiment's title must reflect the composition, history and traditions of both partners to the merger.
The new regiment will initially have two "general service" battalions, ex-Rangers, with a worldwide role. The reduction from two to one battalion will take place next year. There will initially be seven home service battalions, formed from the existing UDR. That is the current number of UDR battalions. It reflects the recent amalgamation of four smaller battalions to form two large ones—without, however, any reduction in the total strength. The new home service battalions will have the same internal security role within Northern Ireland as the UDR does at present.
There will be a single regimental organisation and single headquarters. Training for the regiment as a whole will be centred on the new regiment's training depot. So far as possible, training for general service and home service soldiers will take place together. We have not yet made final decisions on the location of the headquarters or the training depot. Those important matters are being studied at the moment.
We believe that the merger will have positive benefits for all the members of both regiments. The Royal Irish Rangers will bring to the new regiment the traditions of 300 years of distinguished service by famous Irish regiments, and close association with Northern Ireland. The Royal Irish Rangers have recently been a part of British Army of the Rhine, from which they have undertaken tours of duty in Northern Ireland. We would expect the new general service battalion similarly to serve in the Province from time to time in the future. For the Rangers, the merger will also mean that they retain their base in Northern Ireland, and new recruits will be able to undertake their initial training in the Province—which should be a popular move for many of them.
The UDR will bring to the merged regiment the best features of its own unique tradition—the concept of military service to the local community. Part-time, voluntary service is a vital feature of the UDR which will be fully preserved in the new regiment. Closer association with the rest of the Army will mean in practice a cross-fertilisation between the general and home service elements of the Royal Irish Regiment. There will be opportunities for home service officers and soldiers to volunteer for general service training and tours of duty.

Such opportunities will offer better prospects of career advancement and promotion for the former UDR officer and soldier.
Although some members of the UDR and the Royal Irish Rangers might prefer not to have to change, some change is inevitable, and should be of benefit to both. Achieving the benefits is a worthwhile challenge to both regiments. The Royal Irish Regiment will be unique in its intermingling of general and home service elements. The challenge is to create, in the new home service battalions, an even more professional, effective and flexible security force, operating in support of the RUC, and accepted and respected by the whole community of Northern Ireland, while the general service element plays a successful wider role.
It may be helpful to explain to the House why there is a need for a Bill at all. No legislation is required to achieve the other regimental mergers that are currently planned. Primary legislation is needed in this case because the UDR has a statutory basis, uniquely for a British Army regiment. Some right hon. and hon. Members will remember the passage through the House of the Bill that became the Ulster Defence Regiment Act 1969 and brought the UDR into being on 1 April 1970. That Act was consolidated into the Reserve Forces Act 1980.
In a nutshell, the Bill enables the UDR to be treated just like any other regiment and enables its members to become members of a regular regiment. They will no longer be members of a statute-based regiment. The Bill thus provides the framework for the merger to take place on 1 July.
The Bill does not itself bring into being the new Royal Irish Regiment. The naming and formation of regiments of the Regular Army, and the transfer of commissioned officers from one regiment to another on amalgamation, are not matters regulated by statute. They make no appearance, therefore, in our Bill.
Clause 1 provides that all members of the UDR will cease to be members of that regiment at the end of June. They will continue to be members of the armed forces and may be transferred to another corps or regiment. The effect of that provision is that commissioned officers could then be transferred to the Royal Irish Regiment by royal warrant, and soldiers could be transferred by administrative action.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend say a word about the Greenfinches and how they fit into this structure? They are unique. If they are to become members of the Royal Irish Regiment, that will be the first infantry regiment in our history to include women members—or have I misunderstood?

Mr. Hamilton: That is absolutely right. The Greenfinches would then have the same role as now. We do not have women in front-line infantry regiments in the Regular Army, apart from assistant adjutants and a few other jobs of that sort, so there may be problems if Greenfinches transfer to general service battalions of the new regiment, but I suspect that not many of them want to do that in any case. If they did want to transfer, they would have opportunities in other positions occupied by women in the Regular Army, although possibly not in the new Royal Irish Regiment.

Mr. Molyneaux: I am sorry for intervening again, but, as the Minister rightly said, the Bill refers to the Reserve


Forces Act 1980, section 139 of which governs membership of the Ulster Defence Regiment; it also confers on members of the UDR the right to resign at one month's notice. Will that continue? If no provision for it to be continued is made in Committee, can that be done in regulations?
When the Defence Council proceeds to draw up the regulations, will it be possible for those of us with some little knowledge of these matters to assist in the process, bearing in mind that we advised the authorities last July that legislation would be required although they said that it was not? Will we be permitted to assist in drafting the regulations?

Mr. Hamilton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind offer, which I shall put to my officials when the regulations are being drawn up. Members of the UDR transferring will take their present terms and conditions with them. They are all at some stage of a three-year term of employment, and however much of that term is still to be worked through, they will serve. They will be entitled during that period of three years' service to leave at one month's notice—that will continue after the merger. Subsequently, we will give them an extended period of service with the new regiment; they will come under the same terms of service as all other members of the Regular Army and they will have to give a year's notice to leave.
Anxieties have been expressed to me to the effect that people who are, say, under threat of assassination might want to leave at much shorter notice than 12 months. That sort of case will be looked at sympathetically by the commanding officer. There would be no great change in such exceptional circumstances. Once members come under a 22-year engagement, however, they will be expected in the usual course of events to give a longer-period of notice than 30 days.
Most of the rest of the Bill is concerned with the terms and conditions of service of existing members of the UDR and of future members of the home service battalions. These are important matters for the individuals concerned and for the future success of their regiment.
Current members of the UDR may, as clause 1 provides, continue to serve in the new regiment on their existing terms and conditions until the expiry of their current terms of engagement. Their present terms of service are provided for in various sections of the Reserve Forces Act and in the UDR regulations made under that Act. These will continue to apply as necessary, with one exception relating to training obligations: we want to make training on the mainland possible—it is not possible now.
Clause 2 enables us to draw up new Army terms of service tailored to the needs of the home service battalions. Most of the members of the UDR who will form those battalions, and future recruits to them, will only be required—I stress the word "required"—to serve within Northern Ireland.
At present, section 2 of the Armed Forces Act 1966 does not give us the power to limit service geographically in that way. Clause 2(1) remedies that. It further enables us to limit the service that may be required to part-time service, on a call-out basis, as in the UDR at present. The regulations concerned would be laid before Parliament.
I know that many right hon. and hon. Members and, indeed, members of the new regiment will be interested to know how their terms of service will be affected. UDR

part-timers, like the permanent cadre, will be able to continue on their existing terms of service until the expiry of their current periods of enrolment. New terms of service, which the Bill enables us to draw up, have not yet been decided in detail. I can tell the House, however, that we do not envisage any significant changes so far as part-time service is concerned. That is to say that part-timers will continue to be subject to call-out, with a liability for full-time service when required, just as is the UDR at present. As an example of the current arrangements, we recently called upon several hundred part-timers to serve full-time in the Belfast area.
We believe that the part-time element, like its full-time colleagues, will benefit from full integration with a regular regiment. Part-timers will continue to provide a valuable and cost-effective service, but with better access to training and professional skills.
The details of the new terms of service for the full-time members of the home service battalions are still being worked out. I can tell the House in outline what we have in mind.
The terms of service will be more closely aligned with those for the rest of the Regular Army. The norm for the Regular Army is a 22-year engagement. That offers the potential advantage to the individual of a more secure career than the present UDR system, under which soldiers enrol, and may then re-enrol, for a maximum period of three years at a time. Transfer to the Regular Army open engagement would not make it impossible for certain individuals to serve more than 22 years, including earlier service with the UDR, if that was in the Army's interest; nor need the introduction of new terms prevent individuals from serving, as they may in the UDR at present, to a greater age than is customary in the rest of the Army. Each case will, of course, be considered on its merits and in the light of Army needs at the time.
We shall be considering very carefully the details of the new terms of service for the home service battalions, and how they will be introduced. Our principal concern must be the future effectiveness of the new regiment and its ability to do its job efficently. Any changes in terms of service that are needed for existing UDR personnel will be introduced sensitively and fairly and only if they are in the best interests of the new regiment. It is important to ensure for the part-timers, when they are called out, that the existing legal protections against the risk of loss of employment and certain other risks still apply. This is achieved by clauses 2(3) and 2(4) of the Bill. The remaining clauses of the Bill are largely consequential and need not detain the House today.
The Bill's provisions do not affect the total Army manpower requirement in Northern Ireland. That requirement may continue to vary in the future. The UDR does, however, make a most cost-effective contribution to our security effort at present. The home service battalions will continue to do so in future. We do not, therefore, expect any significant change in total costs to arise as a result of the Bill's provisions. I believe that the Bill will be widely welcomed in all parts of the House.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister has not said anything about what will happen to the Ulster Defence Regiment benevolent fund. As I am sure he is aware, the people of Northern Ireland have given generously to that fund and


I think that it stands at over £2 million. Those families who have lost UDR members in the battle are today asking what will happen to that fund.

Mr. Hamilton: That is a good point. In order to be exact, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to wait until my winding-up speech at the end of the debate. I suspect that the fund will be taken over and absorbed into the benevolent fund of the new regiment. That is what normally happens in amalgamations, and I should be surprised if anything different happened in this case. As I say, I shall give a more authoritative reply in my winding-up speech.
The merger that will take place as a result of the Bill's enactment will benefit both regiments. The new Royal Irish Regiment will be able to preserve and enhance the best features of both the Royal Irish Rangers and the Ulster Defence Regiment. It is important for the morale of both regiments that the planning date of 1 July for the merger should be achieved by enactment of the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.

Dr. John Reid: Tragically, it is fitting that we should discuss the Bill today, because our debate occurs at a time when security in Northern Ireland is especially prominent in the minds of all hon. Members. The carnage of the past few weeks, which has left 27 people dead, reminds us all of our responsibility for ensuring that every appropriate forum and every appropriate measure is taken to protect our society, and particularly the troubled Province of Northern Ireland, from terrorism.
The Royal Ulster Constabulary and the British Army, through their professionalism and dedication, continue to perform their duties with outstanding courage, but they cannot be expected to carry the burden alone. We as parliamentarians owe it to them and to all the citizens of Northern Ireland and Great Britain to provide the political leadership and the material resources that will allow terrorism to be defeated.
In particular, we must continue to uphold the principle that terrorists, whether republican or so-called loyalist, shall never prevail. We must make it absolutely clear to the gunmen that their atrocities may earn them contempt, rejection and ultimately incarceration, but that they will never earn them a place at the negotiating table. I echo the Minister's words, that we believe in the democratic ideal and the rule of law. Because of that belief, we have but one choice and are without equivocation, ambiguity or division in our approach to terrorism.
There can be no excuse or validity for terrorist action in a democracy. We in the Labour party and, I am sure, most hon. Members recognise that, although the defeat of terrorism is not a sufficient condition for a solution to the problems of the troubled Province of Northern Ireland, it is a necessary one.
I am pleased to say that the Labour party unreservedly supports the measures proposed by the Minister. The proposed merger of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Rangers is a bold and imaginative step which, if properly administered and carried through, will harness the unique qualities of both regiments and lead to the creation of an even more effective force. Because of what we are discussing, it is important and appropriate to reflect

for a moment on the 22-year history of the Ulster Defence Regiment and to put on record our gratitude to the 48,000 men and women who have served in its ranks.
Throughout the recent troubles, the UDR, of all the regiments in the British Army, has remained the most vulnerable to terrorist attacks. It has been under more pressure, a more direct level of threat, than any other regiment, consistently over the past 22 years. Tragically, since the formation of the UDR in 1970, many of its full-time and part-time members have been callously murdered by terrorists. I am sure that it is a matter of deep regret to all hon. Members that those murders are now numbered not in tens but in hundreds. Like all their colleagues, those soldiers joined up to protect their community in full knowledge of the extra dangers that they faced, precisely because they were residents of Northern Ireland. They deserve our deepest respect.
The Bill gives the UDR the opportunity to carry those traditions of bravery and resoluteness into a new regiment and, through it, into the rest of the British Army. I have no doubt that it will do so with all the determination that we have come to expect from it. We should feel confident about the success of the merger because the other regiment, the Royal Irish Rangers, has an equally distinguished record of service in the British Army. That was mentioned by the Minister. It is the product of a merger in 1968 between the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, the Royal Ulster Rifles and the Royal Irish Fusiliers.
The regiment's battle honours include Waterloo, the Somme and Normandy, to name only some, and they evoke many proud moments in the history of the British Army. Recently, the Royal Irish Rangers has seen service in Northern Ireland, and has also experienced the tragic loss of men.
The merger of those two regiments and the creation of the Royal Irish Regiment should be welcomed for a number of reasons. Not only will it provide the authorities in Northern Ireland with a new regiment which combines the best qualities of its two predecessors, but it will help to give the public greater confidence in the security forces, a matter to which I shall return. The formation of the Royal Irish Regiment will provide a useful opportunity to address one of the many difficult problems faced by the UDR—the religious imbalance in recruitment about which the Minister spoke.
When the UDR was established in 1970, approximately 18 per cent. of its recruits came from the Catholic community. In the 22 years since then, the IRA has made a particular point of waging a campaign of murder and intimidation against Catholics in the UDR, with the result that, today, Catholics make up only about 3 per cent. of the regiment's total strength. On a recent visit to Northern Ireland, I was extremely impressed—in fact, I was staggered—by the extent of the trouble, care, caution and expense that is required to protect that 3 per cent. of the UDR. They work under considerable pressures, perhaps much greater even than the other 97 per cent. of the UDR.
For whatever reason, the tragic fact is that only 3 per cent. of the UDR come from the Catholic community. We understand the reasons for that, and would not dream of making any cheap points about it. However, we would be naive to pretend that that fact has not increasingly been the cause of significant problems in the relationship between Catholics and the security forces. That is the


reason for the IRA's intimidation in the first place. That is precisely why they wanted to reduce the number of Catholics inside the UDR.
However, as the imbalance in UDR manpower became more pronounced, many Catholics—including law-abiding Catholics—have felt less able to join the regiment, and relations between the regiment and the Catholic community have tragically deteriorated. Those tensions have seriously impeded the process of law enforcement, and attention should be given to overcoming them.
As about 30 per cent. of recruits to the Royal Irish Rangers are Catholic, we believe that the merger will create a regiment which will stand to benefit the security effort in Northern Ireland and also one which will more accurately reflect the religious composition of the community.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Reid: In a minute.
I do not for a minute pretend that that solves the problem, because, in 1970, 18 per cent. of the UDR were Catholic. We may again be at the beginning of a cycle of intimidation by the IRA to reduce the balance of Catholics inside the new regiment and to create in turn the same form of alienation. That is why the problem will not go away, but at least this merger gives us another chance to deal with it.

Mr. Hunter: The hon. Gentleman rightly postponed my intervention, because he went on to answer most of my worries on the matter. We must be wary in our thinking on this issue. It would be quite mistaken to assume that the relatively high proportion of Catholic recruits in the Royal Irish Rangers will be perpetuated in the amalgamation. The hon. Gentleman has acknowledged the problem, and I thank him for his comments. I do not wish to introduce any element of confrontation between us. We must tackle this problem seriously, and we should continue to worry about it.

Dr. Reid: Absolutely: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Let us put on record the fact that intimidation does not happen by accident but is planned by terrorists to try to alienate further the security forces from the Catholic community. It will be a continuing problem: I accept that.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: However, it is worth making the point that there is a great difference between those serving in a general service battalion and those in a home service battalion. On the whole, soldiers who are recruited from Northern Ireland to many different regiments in the British Army have no great difficulty if they are careful about returning to Northern Ireland on leave. It is very different for members of the UDR who return home regularly every night—if they are not being kept out by the UDR. That is a much more difficult relationship, and they are in greater danger.

Dr. Reid: I take the Minister's point. With all those caveats and difficulties—

Mr. David Trimble: rose—

Mr. Peter Robinson: So that Roman Catholics who wish to join the local home-based section of the new regiment do not feel isolated because of the intimidation that they would undoubtedly face, does the hon.

Gentleman think that it would be helpful if all leaders of constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and Church leaders there encouraged them to join the local security forces and let them know that they are behind them?

Dr. Reid: Certainly that would be of assistance, but what would assist more than anything would be the creation of a political climate based on cohesion rather than division. That is a simple way to sum up several hundred years of problems—problems to which the House and many others applied their minds. Precisely for the reasons given by the Minister, it is difficult to maintain the present Catholic balance in the UDR. It may well be slightly easier to do so with a regiment which is more fully part of the general regimental system of the British Army, and which may assist elsewhere, not merely in the north of Ireland.
I was impressed by the nature and scale of the problem of maintaining Catholics inside the UDR when I went to Northern Ireland. Without wishing to go into too fine detail, the lengths to which the armed forces hierarchy has to go to protect the 3 per cent. of Catholics—by stationing them away from home and so on—is of proportions which can hardly be imagined by many Members of the House.
The amalgamation of the two regiments can only have a positive consequence by normalising the security situation. The more representative the security forces are in Northern Ireland, the greater will be their legitimacy. It will be easier for them to gain the trust and the co-operation of the public—encouraged, we hope, by democratic politicians of all persuasions and parties.
The reasons for the merger have been stated as military rather than political. Even so, I hope that the Government are sufficiently aware of the political benefits that may be derived from the merger to act wisely in its implementation. From what the Minister told the House, I am assured of that in these initial stages. I urge the Government to consider what steps could be taken to ensure that recruitment into the Royal Irish Regiment remains balanced.
The merger of the two regiments also offers us the prospect of an enhanced role for personnel serving in the UDR and the Royal Irish Rangers, which is a matter of some importance to their personal ambitions.
Through the general service battalion, members of the new regiment will have a chance to take advantage of the full range of opportunities offered by the British Army, including service in NATO's rapid reaction corps. Alternatively, by choosing to serve in Northern Ireland, recruits will develop their potential through some of the most challenging and demanding duties performed by any army in the world, not merely by the British Army.
The cross-fertilisation of different skills and experiences within the Royal Irish Regiment will improve its military effectiveness and allow it to make a unique and valued contribution to the British Army. Standards of professionalism should be considerably boosted by the merger, especially since clause 1 removes the current restrictions on training outside the Province of Northern Ireland.
The greater integration within the British Army which will result from the merger will be of great benefit for the Army and for those who choose to enlist in the new regiment. The Opposition urge the Government to continue to take measures to strengthen the full-time element of the merged regiment, since it will allow greater


flexibility and operational effectiveness. We also hope that the Royal Irish Regiment will be able to guarantee greater security in its future recruitment.
Given the opportunities offered by the UDR, it was perhaps inevitable that terrorists would seek to infiltrate it to gain access to weapons and to training. Indeed, it is remarkable that such a relatively small number of gunmen have managed to evade the vetting procedures, with about 17 UDR members having been convicted of committing terrorist murders. That figure obviously worries all of us in the House, but, given the circumstances of Northern Ireland, it is perhaps surprising that it is so small. Appalling though that figure is—17 assassinations and murders—it has to be balanced against other figures. For example, the number of suicides among members of the UDR is several times that figure of 17, which gives some illustration of the pressures, strains and stresses under which those members of the UDR were working.
Nevertheless, the merger of the UDR with the Royal Irish Rangers will once again allow recruiting to be more selective, and, hopefully, will increase public confidence in Northern Ireland.
Sadly, the merger of the two regiments will lead to an estimated 750 redundancies—soldiers who have shown themselves willing to risk their lives for the public good. With unemployment in Northern Ireland standing at 14 per cent., even under the present system of assessing unemployment, it is five points higher than in the United Kingdom overall. Therefore, any redundancies in Northern Ireland are of considerable seriousness.
The prospects of the estimated 750 are even bleaker than those of service men and women who are being made redundant in other parts of the British Army. In implementing the cuts, I urge the Government to take proper and sympathetic account of the debt we owe to those who have served in the regiments and to respond accordingly in the light of the extremely difficult economic and employment circumstances of Northern Ireland.
I should like the Minister to outline the measures that will be taken to ensure that redundant personnel from either the Ulster Defence Regiment or the Royal Irish Rangers receive adequate help during the period of resettlement. As he did not do so in his opening speech, I hope that he will respond in his summation.
The Opposition are in no doubt that the merger of the two regiments will be a success. The British Army has many fine and distinguished regiments within its ranks which have been forged from previous mergers, including the Royal Irish Rangers. Like those other regiments, the Royal Irish Regiment will, we believe, be more than the sum of its parts. It will make a qualitative improvement, from which we shall all stand to gain.
The Bill should be greeted by all those who want peace and security in Northern Ireland. It will send yet another signal to the terrorist godfathers that we shall never be prepared to yield to force, that their efforts are futile. The Labour party will not be calling for a Division; and if a Division is called, we shall support the Government.
We firmly believe that, in years to come, the House will be able to look back and reflect upon the outstanding role played by the Royal Irish Regiment in helping to defeat

terrorism and to establish the necessary condition for a political solution and in arriving at a peaceful and, God help us, prosperous Northern Ireland.

Mr. James Molyneaux: I express my appreciation of the patience displayed by the Minister of State in giving way so frequently to those who wished to intervene and providing clarification and some reassurances—more of which will be forthcoming, I am sure, when he replies to the debate. I express appreciation also for the presence of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. We know of his interest in the Bill, and he is aware of our views and interest.
Without wishing to embarrass the Opposition, let me say that I appreciate the balanced and fair-minded way in which their Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), set out their position. If we were not coming up to an election, I might be tempted to say that it was a refreshing change from some of the utterances that we have heard from time to time. I do not wish to create friction: I simply pay a genuine tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his deep understanding of the problems that confront the Ulster Defence Regiment and all of us who live in Northern Ireland.
The House will delude itself if it fails to take account of the suspicion in Northern Ireland that attends every reconstruction of the security forces. In the 1970s, the Royal Ulster Constabulary was reformed. It was disarmed and demoralised following the Hunt report. The constabulary was to become a police service, running advice centres at which tea and biscuits would be freely dispensed. Its reception centres were to be open to all comers. The Hunt report—this appears in paragraph 17 of the 1969 White Paper, and is a reference to the RUC reserve—stated:
Members of the Reserve will not be called upon to give armed support to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and they will therefore not be issued with firearms.
That is an example of how far Governments can sometimes be removed from reality when dealing with crucial matters. Within a short time, the RUC reserve was armed to the teeth; it could not have survived otherwise.
The Hunt report and a subsequent report recommended the disbandment of the Ulster Special Constabulary. Its crime was that it had a tendency to maintain stability, and by doing that it made life uncomfortable for law breakers, from whatever quarter they came.
In a lighter vein, I well remember one example of the even-handedness of the Ulster Special Constabulary. It was provided when a curfew was broken by the master of my local Orange lodge, who became engrossed in a friendly discussion with his Roman Catholic neighbour. As a result, both men were arrested by the constabulary. They had to continue their conversation in the cells in Antrim police station.
The disbandment of one force and the attempted emasculation of the other led to the state of lawlessness that has culminated in the savage butchery of recent weeks. The UDR was established by an Act of Parliament in 1969 and it was always clear to us, but apparently not to others, that its status could be altered only by an amending Act. There is a perception that the change in its status had its origins in the orchestrated campaign against the regiment. That campaign was a facsimile of earlier offensives against the Ulster Special Constabulary. The


most vehement part of the campaign was that which followed the alleged leaking of photomontages of terrorist suspects. They were similar to the two that we see on the gate as we walk to the underground station on our way from the House.
Those who initiated the campaign—unfortunately, they are not present today—brought about what was known as the Stevens inquiry. As a result, they are directly responsible for the horrific increase in terrorist murders in recent months. The reckless behaviour of Deputy Chief Constable Stevens put at risk the lives of numerous families of UDR men.
Mr. Stevens chalked up yet another achievement. He swept into his net, intentionally or otherwise, the then leaders of the so-called loyalist paramilitary bodies, most of them for comparatively minor misdemeanours. I do not stand in their defence, but their places have been taken by younger, hardened and well-trained leaders, who are now building up striking forces, complete with hit men from abroad—outside the United Kingdom—with the object of matching the firepower of the Provisional IRA.
That is the achievement of those who set out to smear the UDR. I give them a friendly word of advice—that they would be well advised to refrain from similar campaigns, which might have even more disastrous throwbacks.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that, because of certain caches of arms in the south of Ireland being transported across the border, the groups to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred have far more striking power now than ever before?

Mr. Molyneaux: Yes, and that matter was raised on 12 December during Northern Ireland Questions, when the Secretary of State and I informed the House that we were aware of an accumulation of arms and munitions as far south as Limerick, for shipment to Belfast. Unfortunately, that occurred in the pre-Christmas period, with disastrous effects.
I fervently hope that the merger for which the Bill provides is for sounder reasons than those given when news of it was first leaked—for those set out in a document that I understand has been circulated to right hon. and hon. Members on the Benches opposite. At the time of the original leak, the main selling point was that the merged regiment would be more acceptable across the community by reason of its religious composition.
I am sure that my hon. Friends who sit on the Benches opposite agree that that is an entirely desirable objective. If it could be achieved, a balance would exist that roughly represented the religious composition of the Northern Ireland population. However, for reasons already touched upon, that is an unrealistic objective.
In its first few years, the Ulster Defence Regiment had the greatest ever proportion of Roman Catholics in its ranks. They accounted for about 20 per cent. of its membership, compared with about 2 per cent. today. The regiment also included a large proportion—as much as 50 per cent. in some battalions—of the much-maligned B Specials, yet we are told that the association of the Ulster Defence Regiment with the Ulster Special Constabulary is "unacceptable" to many Catholics.
Whatever other factors may have played a part in the rapid reduction in Catholic membership of the Ulster Defence Regiment and, sadly, in a virtual cessation of Catholic recruitment, it is undoubtedly the case that the

fundamental cause of that change in the regiment's composition was that the IRA targeted Catholic members of the security forces even more viciously and relentlessly than it did Protestant members—and it still does.
On a personal note, it was a distressing experience in recent months to receive at my advice centre—separately, over a period of months—three young Catholic former members of the Ulster Defence Regiment whom I commended, and for whom I had supplied references in securing their enlistment. They quickly worked their way up to become commissioned officers, but eventually came to tell me, with broken hearts, that they were compelled to move house, and in two cases to resign their commissions and to leave the regiment, because the IRA would not allow them to remain in it. That is unsurprising, given the great ease with which the terrorists murder those who live in the same communities as they do.
At one time, two Catholic UDR men were being murdered for every Protestant member killed. The IRA realised, and still realises, that if the security forces in general and the localised Ulster Defence Regiment in particular could recruit successfully from the Catholic community, not only would its ability to operate be severely compromised, but its claim to represent the Catholic minority exposed as utterly fraudulent—which it is.
It is all too easy for those in the security forces—whether in the UDR, RUC, or Regular Army—to forget that even in so-called hard areas many are cowed into submission, and even into supporting the IRA, which uses the same terrorism there that is inflicted on the rest of us. It is difficult to see how cosmetic changes such as those proposed in the Bill will make any difference to Catholic recruitment—particularly in the border counties and other terrorist-infected areas, where such recruitment is most needed. Were it possible to recruit freely in those areas, there would be no need. We would have destroyed the bases of terrorism, and the UDR itself would become redundant.

Mr. Julian Brazier: From my limited, second-hand knowledge from a variety of sources—I am part-Irish, being a mixture of southern Irish Protestant, Northern Ireland Protestant, and English Catholic—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's remarks are entirely true. However, perhaps he ought not to reach such gloomy conclusions. A large number of Catholics currently serving in the Royal Irish Rangers were either recruited on the British mainland, where they were not subject to the same constraints, or from parts of southern Ireland, where the IRA does not have a presence comparable to that found in the tough Belfast housing estates and other areas to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, where intimidation is rife.

Mr. Molyneaux: I do not dispute that, but a distinction must be made in respect of the Catholics—all honour to them—from southern Ireland or this island, who do not live in the frontier zones, where they would be completely isolated, and where it would be impossible to protect them effectively.
On another personal note, I remember having tea with the late Sir Norman Strong, whose son Jim served in the RUC Reserve. They were both murdered one evening, when their house went down around them. Jim entered the room and said, "Young John Smith has just joined the


UDR part-time." Sir Norman replied, "My God, not another one." I said, "You misheard. He has joined the UDR—he has not been killed." Sir Norman told me, "It is all the same thing. He will be killed. I will show you where he lives." Sir Norman took me to the window and pointed to the home of that young recruit, which was 400 yards from the frontier. He said, "How can anyone, no matter how determined, protect him? He is as good as dead." That illustrates the extent of the danger that continues to exist not just in the frontier regions but in many other areas.
I am being not pessimistic but realistic when I say that it would be absurd to suppose that the new Royal Irish Regiment will be able to transfer to all its battalions the ability of the Royal Irish Rangers to recruit Catholics from north and south of the border. One fears that the opposite will be true, and that the majority of the members of that new regiment, in its anti-terrorist role, and even of the general service or ex-Ranger battalion, will suffer a serious reduction in Catholic recruitment.
That may be viewed as a pessimistic assessment, but I have taken the time of the House because I felt it necessary to explain that situation, so that, in time to come, the merged regiment will not be condemned for lacking sectarian or religious balance. I hope that others will express their views on that aspect, and that we can protect the new regiment well in advance, by being realistic and stating why it is not healthy—to put it mildly—for Roman Catholics to join it, particularly if, in a part-time capacity, they must live in dangerous or, as we call it, indian territory.
So what benefits can we expect from the amalgamation? It would be very welcome for the new regiment to be more fully accepted as part of the Regular Army than the UDR has been, but, if the price to be paid for this is the abandonment of the UDR's original role and purpose, we have to ask whether that price is worth paying. The UDR was formed as a kind of militia to be used purely in the internal security role in the area in which it was recruited, with the obvious very great advantages of local knowledge and continuity of experience that result from this. Field-Marshal Templer, commander of the only successful counter-insurgency campaign in modern military history, said that it was possible to defeat insurgency only with the assistance of locally recruited forces.
In spite of an unwelcome reduction in the part-time strength of the UDR over the years, and a welcome increase in full-time strength, efficiency and professionalism, the UDR has remained the same in essence until now, although the gradual decline in the number of part-timers has been a cause of concern.
Another matter of concern is the way in which the part-time element of the UDR. already under pressure in many ways, may be phased out altogether. I accept entirely what the Minister of State has said, that that is not his intention at the moment. However, it may be phased out not as a matter of overt policy but by the insensitive and counter-productive way in which it may be treated after the amalgamation.
Training requirements appear likely to be increased—that seems to be the intention—to a level which hardly any of the part-timers will be able to sustain, and this will leave them less and less time for operations. This in turn will

eventually leave the Army able to claim that, although they are better trained, the part-timers are not cost-effective and should be done away with. Those of us who have served in the forces know how much rivalry there can be between the various arms of the services and even within the same service.
That would be a great tragedy, not only because of the symbolic importance of the part-timers, but because of the lessening of the UDR's local links, which have been of tremendous operational value, although all too often not fully utilised, and the great intelligence-gathering potential, also not fully utilised.
There would be the same sort of damage to both the morale and the operational effectiveness of the permanent Catholic element of the UDR if the officers and soldiers if the new regiment were increasingly posted further away from their home areas, as I understand is likely to be the case. I am talking about their being posted away from their own local battalion area to another area where they are complete strangers.
The position and the role of the part-timers are of supreme importance and simply must be maintained. No unreasonably high levels of training or other commitments should be allowed to force their numbers down even further and make them ineffective.
The full-time or permanent element of the UDR also must retain their localised recruiting and operational areas. Cross-posting between battalions should take place only when necessary, so as not to destroy the local knowledge value of the UDR. Similarly, officer and soldier training should remain tailored as far as possible to the internal security role. This should not mean, however, that former UDR personnel should continue to be treated as second-class soldiers or second-class citizens in terms of their careers within the regiment. They are internal security specialists and should be treated as such.
Ulster Defence Regiment officers and warrant officers should be given a fair share of appointments in the new regiment, even if they are not paper-qualified, because that is often irrelevant, and should have opportunities in the same way as their Regular counterparts.
The new regiment will mean that, gradually, all ex-UDR soldiers will be on Regular Army engagements and terms of service. It is absolutely vital that soldiers remain able to join their local battalions if they so wish and to remain with them, so far as manning requirements permit.
I will summarise the position of my party to this merger in this fashion. In the long term, it must also be ensured that soldiers may continue to specify that they wish to serve only in the Northern Ireland-based battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment, without unfair prejudice to their careers, for as long as the present situation—that is, the troubles—continues.
It should also be noted that, at present, a UDR soldier can leave the regiment on 28 days' notice. The Minister of State has already conceded that, although this should not normally be encouraged, given the peculiar and difficult circumstances in which many UDR soldiers live, this option must remain open. I know that the Minister meant what he said, and I trust that ways and means will be found to give effect to this.

Mr. William Ross: I rather thought, when the Minister was replying to that point, that he was talking only about the full-time members of the


UDR being able to benefit from the 28-day get-out clause. I am wondering what the situation would be for the part-timers.

Mr. Molyneaux: I thought that the Minister and I had it in common that we were talking mainly about the part-time element, because, as I understand it, we were talking about the reserve force and all that goes with it. The enlistment period for the full-timers would be broadly in line with that in the Regular Army. The Minister may like to come back to that point.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I think it best that I clarify this completely when I am winding up at the end of the debate.

Mr. Molyneaux: I am grateful to the Minister.
In short, the amalgamation must not be allowed to reduce the undoubted worth of the existing Ulster Defence Regiment as a locally recruited force operating in what one might call its soldiers' home areas.
I trust that all these points will be taken up and adopted when we come to drafting the regulations. I trust that the House will join me in expressing gratitude, as the hon. Member for Motherwell, North and the Minister of State have already done, to past and present officers and men of the UDR and the Greenfinches, all of whom have served with great distinction the law-abiding people of our part of the United Kingdom.

Rev. Ian Paisley: This is a sad day for Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland are carrying a very heavy and tragic burden at the present time. I cannot think of a more insensitive Bill that could come before the House than the one now before us. I appreciate very deeply the realism that has been demonstrated both by the Minister of State and by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid).
I have sat in the House for 22 years. I have sat through debates in which the Ulster Special Constabulary has had its guts kicked on the Floor of the House and evil things have been said about it. There is not a right-thinking person who does not say that it is a pity that we did not keep the Ulster Special Constabulary; then we would not be in the mess that we are in today. I told the House that—and not with a few hon. Members present, as there are today. The House was crowded. Members were cheering, as if the House were doing a great thing. The House has not paid for that in the same measure as have the people I represent.
I first came to the House because of the issue of the abandonment of the Ulster Special Constabulary. The Official Unionist Member had one of the largest majorities in the House—some 40,000—but I toppled him. That showed that local people knew exactly what was happening. We know today what is happening, and we know to our cost what is going to happen.
This has been a planned effort on the part of those who want to destroy our Province, and to destroy its stability and the living conditions of its people. It flows directly from the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I have all the evidence before me today. I have, for instance, a statement issued by the then Taoiseach, in which he said that the agreement—he was glad that it had been signed—would

put forward Irish views and proposals for the progressive establishment of a new security system which would obviate a need for the UDR to be involved in local security. This will be pursued sensitively, carefully and firmly.
At every Irish conference meeting before the agreement took place, the now demised Foreign Minister made vicious, evil, unwarranted and lying attacks on the UDR. We have heard a eulogy of that regiment tonight, but we heard no such eulogy from the Foreign Minister. All that he did was kick the long-suffering people of Ulster in the teeth, including its widows and orphans.
More than once, I have told the Secretary of State before conference meetings that such attacks on the UDR drive at the very heart of the people of Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that at the meeting that I mentioned, Mr. Collins—who was to have brought up the issue and fought like a lion—never even mentioned the UDR. On television before the meeting, however, he expressed his anger, and his deep-seated hatred for the regiment.
It is interesting to note that we are not talking across the divide tonight, because those who represent the other side are conspicuous by their absence. We are told that we should be speaking to the other side, and we have come to the debating Chamber as elected Members; our opponents, however, have not come to take part in the democratic process. Here we have what the Taoiseach wanted.
Michael Noonan, the Irish Republic's Minister of Justice, commented on the Taoiseach's remarks. He said:
the first thing that they will do … is try to curb the paramilitary UDR."—[Official Report, 27 November 1985; Vol. 87, c. 907.]
That was Garret FitzGerald's Justice Minister, describing the UDR as a paramilitary regiment.
In the House of Commons, I told the then Prime Minister—I wish that she were here tonight, because it was she who betrayed the people of Ulster—
It will come as no surprise to the right hon. Lady to hear that I shall not be commending this document of treachery and deceit to the House.
I was, of course, referring to the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
As the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic arrived home from Hillsborough castle it was widely publicised on television, radio and in the press that he said:
'In future, the Ulster Defence Regiment will operate differently from the way in which it has operated for the last 12 years. That means that from now on the present position under which the Ulster Defence Regiment can stop people on the road, search them and question them will no longer operate …The question of how security should be organised in Northern Ireland is one for the new intergovernmental conference."'
I asked:
In view of the fact that the people who live on the border in Northern Ireland get no defence from anybody but the Ulster Defence Regiment, what will they do in these circumstances, and why should a Prime Minister of a foreign republic have a say in the government and direction of a British Army regiment?"—[Official Report, 18 November 1985; Vol. 87, c. 22.]
I received no answer.
It seems very strange that a foreign country and foreign Ministers should be able to make it their aim to destroy a regiment of the British Army.

Rev. William McCrea: Does my hon. Friend know what strength of protest was made by Her Majesty's Government in the House to the Government of the Irish Republic about those despicable remarks about the UDR?

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Prime Minister said that the Taoiseach could interpret the agreement in whatever way he wished. He could put his own interpretation on it. But we know—and the Leader of the Official Unionists made it clear—that people who are not here today joined in the campaigns with gusto. Let me say, with fervour, "Yes, we honour our Protestant co-religionists who join the UDR, but we honour even more the Roman Catholics who joined."
I know what I am talking about. A dastardly deed was done at a culvert in South Down. Four members of the UDR were killed and a Roman Catholic was among them. I visited the family home—I make no distinctions in my visits. The father of the household said to me, "Dr. Paisley, I take it hard, but I take it harder because of what happened 10 minutes ago." I asked, "What happened?" He said, "The undertaker called to tell me that he could not bury my son. He said that if a hearse was brought into the street, the IRA would deal with it." The family had to summon an undertaker from 25 miles away. The church authorities then said that they wanted to see no flag and none of the trappings of the UDR if the coffin was to be carried into the church. That man was a Roman Catholic, who had served in the British Army. His was an Army family, and he had wanted his sons to maintain its tradition.
The same has happened over and over again. I salute the Roman Catholic members of the police, including those in my constituency, but they cannot go home. The hon. Member for Motherwell, North admitted that he was amazed at the extent of the activity that has to be undertaken to safeguard such people. We should consider the case of a young man who cannot visit his parents in North Antrim; they have to go to a safe place to visit him. Those young men have been targeted, and driven out. The IRA has decided to get them out. For what purpose? To turn the propaganda, and to say that this is a sectarian force. The merger that we are discussing bows to that pressure, whether we accept it or not.
I shall encourage people to join the merged regiment. I do not want it, but I shall not stand against anyone who wants to join. Indeed, when men have approached me I have said, "Certainly you should join and do your bit" But I have never heard the hon. Members who are absent tonight or the Roman Catholic Church authorities tell people to join the security forces.

Rev. William McCrea: It is very important that a certain matter be put on record. Does my hon. Friend agree not only that the IRA carried out attacks to drive Roman Catholic members out of the security forces, but that those Roman Catholic members have been isolated in their own community by their political representatives, who in this House are regarded as constitutional politicians, and by their Church leaders? On the one hand, they are driven out by the IRA, but equally they are isolated by people of whom this House speaks well.

Rev. Ian Paisley: No one knows more about this situation than does my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), who lives with it every day.
Until there is a clear statement from the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Northern Ireland and its political representatives in this House that people should join the security forces, there will be no change in recruitment.

These people need to be backed up when they join the security forces. They need the strength of their community behind them. But that is not what they have been getting, and the House should take note of that.
History is repeating itself. We remember the Hunt report. Lord Hunt decided that we in Northern Ireland were a crowd of bitter bigots and that there were no bigger bigots than the members of the police force. Hunt asked why a police barracks—police stations were called barracks in those days—should have iron doors. "Take them off", the police were told. I saw the iron doors coming off the police stations. "Why do they have iron shutters?" Hunt asked. "They are not necessary, take them off." The next question was: "Why do the police wear leather belts?" So the leather belts came off. During one debate in the old Stormont Parliament I said that the police might as well be given gutties lest they stand on somebody's toes. Then the point was made that the police should be dressed differently, so their uniform was got rid of, and officers were put into semi-green uniforms. The attitude was that everything would be better if everything were different. In a police station I said to an officer, "How do you hide yourself from attack?" He replied, "We don't hide ourselves—we are just to be slaughtered." 
Did the Roman Catholic population suddenly turn round and tell everybody to join the police? No—they said, "We need to get rid of the police." At that time the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said that what we needed was community police to which everyone could give allegiance. He said that it was necessary to press for a change in the identity of the RUC. We have been through all that and we have seen good men slaughtered, the best of men cut down. We attended their funerals, and we put our hands on the curly heads of little boys who would never see their fathers again. That went to the very depths of the people of Northern Ireland.
We thought that this Parliament was learning—that after all these years it would know that this is not the way to proceed—but today we have the same thing. As has been said, it is almost a replay, but in the years between we have suffered a lot. In many cases an UDR soldier is not a target but a victim. If he were a target he could fight back. I salute the UDR man who used his weapon on the border the other day. He got his man. If he had not got his man, he himself would have been taken.

Rev. William McCrea: Three of them ran.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, the other three ran, and were found hiding under a bush in the safe territory of the Republic, from which they will not be extradicted for trial. That soldier typifies the spirit of the Ulster Defence Regiment.
As the hon. Member for Motherwell, North said, more than 200 have been killed. What is more, a person is not out of trouble even when he leaves the Ulster Defence Regiment, as is shown by the fact that 45 ex-members have been killed. The number of members who have been seriously wounded is 377—some of them on duty, some of them off duty. Those are the men and women whom the Government must not forget.
No one can question the gallantry and loyalty of the Ulster Defence Regiment. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Motherwell, North refer to the 17 men who had been convicted of murder, but we must remember also the number of members of other regiments serving in


Northern Ireland who have killed, and the number who have been convicted. Let it not be said that all members of all other regiments were perfect people who never committed a crime. Some were tried for atrocious killings—killings that I would not want to describe. Let us be clear about that. The Ulster Defence Regiment cannot be condemned because of those killings, and the SDLP has no right to condemn it. The members concerned were brought to court and tried. At present four are awaiting a re-hearing following examination of the evidence by the Secretary of State. We do not know what the result will be.
This condemnation of the UDR is disgraceful. It is a campaign of vilification and dishonesty against men who have given of their best. There is only one thing wrong with the Ulster Defence Regiment: it happens to be mainly Protestant. If it were a largely Roman Catholic regiment, we should not be discussing this Bill. We need to be clear about what the issues are.
There is no greater hardship than that which has been experienced by these gallant members of Her Majesty's security forces. They risk all to defend all, and they have been sacrificed by an inept security policy. The Ulster Defence Regiment has borne its burden and its share of the heartache. A regiment now consisting of 6,000 full-time and part-time soldiers has seen more than 200 of its members slaughtered by the IRA. I have referred to the four soldiers who were killed by an IRA culvert bomb near Dunpatrick. In July four UDR soldiers died when an IRA land mine exploded near Ballygawley, and in May 1991 three were killed in a massive lorry bomb attack at the Glenanne UDR base in south Armagh.
Before this House gives any credence to criticism of the regiment it ought to acknowledge the fact that in the last 21 years more than 40,000 civilians in Northern Ireland have passed through its ranks, and that in those 21 years only 17 members or ex-members have been convicted of murder or other terrorist-related offences in Northern Ireland. Of those 17, four are currently having their cases re-heard.
I must express my criticism of the Stevens inquiry—one of the worst things ever to have happened in Northern Ireland. The Stevens inquiry was unfair to innocent men. Mr. Stevens came over at a meeting and boasted, "I'll get men into the dock." That was his attitude. One Sunday he got the chief constable to identify members of the Ulster Defence Regiment who, in their various streets of Belfast, were not known to be members. He did not take these men in for questioning when they were on the UDR base. He could have had police officers at the gate, and the men could have been questioned on the base. Instead, he sent Land-Rovers, armoured cars and machine guns—the whole panoply—at 6 o'clock in the morning for innocent men, the vast majority of whom were proved to be innocent. After that they had to leave their homes. They had to pull out their furniture and their wives and children. The children had to be taken from school. That was done in the name of Mr. Stevens.
I am not an expert in spying, but if Mr. Nelson who is now in gaol was still doing his spy work, we would not have the groanings and crying over what happened in Ormeau road because, as his barrister said, he was a hero in saving people from being murdered. The House must recognise that. We can all be ethical at times and pass judgment but is the House helping us in the current situation to shoot people in the foot? That is what has happened and we must face the facts.
I shall go back to Northern Ireland to fight an election. The Labour party will not be fighting me because, for some reason, it does not believe in fighting elections in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Kilfedder: Are the Tories fighting you?

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Tory candidate has taken sick and I do not know whether the Tories will find another one. I should welcome a Tory candidate—I would fight him on this issue alone. The resounding answer of the Protestants and Roman Catholics who vote for me will show what they think of this measure.
I hope that the House will some day recognise the issues and that it will face them. Like my hon. Friends, I am worried about the present impasse. I can tell the Secretary of State that it is a different impasse. So-called Protestant loyalists are determined to answer killing with killing, outrage with outrage, and violence with violence. They will not spare man, woman or child. It is a terrible situation. I have seen principles sacrificed in the House because it is said that if we did this or that it would alienate the minority, but the House is alienating the majority and it should be aware of that.
It is strange that every hon. Member who speaks in this debate will say the same thing that the leader of the Ulster Unionist party and I have said. There is no disunity among us on that, except that I take a harder line. I shall divide the House, even if there are only two or three of us. Like the spokesman for the Labour party who said that he hoped that he could look back with pleasure, I hope that I shall be proved wrong and that 20 years on people will say, "You made a mistake." I hope and pray for that, but I know from the past record that a tragedy will arise from the merger.
I am already worried about the response. The IRA has said, "It is only a change of name—it is still the old regiment." All the Opposition parties—including the SDLP—said that they would be prepared to give the measure a fair wind, but that was all. They then asked why we should have a militia at all. I have not heard the Cardinal saying, "Join this new regiment; after all, your co-religionists from Liverpool are in it and you should join because I understand that many of the 30 per cent. of Roman Catholics in it are from Liverpool, and some from the south of Ireland, too."
Another outrageous aspect is the suggestion that it will be a good thing if Orange and Green are together in an Irish regiment on the streets of Belfast. I do not understand that—it would be dangerous for both groups. Any regiment built on that structure would be dangerous. It should not matter who was the officer or the regimental sergeant major—he would be a member of the Army and his religion should not be a factor. We are approaching a quota system such as that which already exists under fair employment legislation in the Province.
Will the Minister tell us more about the review or the public relations exercise of which we were told today? A public relations body took a poll of the UDR. It is amazing that we did not hear of it, as I have a lot of contacts. An hon. Member said that a general told him what he thought, but a general visited me and told me the opposite: he hit me on the shoulder and said, "Big man, you are right in your opposition to this measure." Who was polled?
We were told that the results of the poll showed that the Royal Irish Rangers were sort of neutral, but that the vast majority of officers and members of the UDR are all for the measure. I have not heard that, although I know that some officers do favour the measure. One reason is that they want to be integrated so that they can have a career in the Army, but that is not what men joined the UDR to do. They joined it to get out of the Army as quickly as possible, to end the troubles, to defeat terrorists and to return to civilian life. They did not join to have a career in the Army.
Will the Minister tell us more about the poll because we are very interested? Which firm undertook the poll? How many men were questioned? What were their ranks? Apparently civilians were visited and they were also in favour. The most interesting fact to emerge today is that there was a poll. The fact that the poll took place proves that there was something wrong because if one knew that the Army favoured the merger, one would not carry out a public relations exercise with testings and soundings.
We also need to know about the people who will lose their jobs. How many of the UDR bases will be closed?

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will my hon. Friend join me in asking the Minister if he can perhaps help to dispel the rumour—I hope that it is only a rumour—about the UDR base in Ladas drive in my constituency? Locally there is considerable fear that the Government intend to close it. It is an important part of the local structure and there would be great concern if it were to close. I have a unique relationship with my hon. Friend—he is my constituent and I am his—and as resident in that area he will have the same concerns.

Rev. Ian Paisley: My hon. Friend did not mention the fact that I am also his proposer at the election, and a voter as well.
It would be far better for us to know the whole story now. How many bases will be closed? I would also like the Minister to tell us how many part timers there are and how the number compares with last year. Why is there a rundown in part-time recruitment? Is it not because current advertising is for full-time recruits? If one does not advertise for part-timers, one cannot expect them to offer themselves. One could destroy the part-time category of the force merely by not taking on anyone else or by not advertising.
We should be given the bitter facts and we should face them. I do not want a constituent to say to me in a few months' time that I told him our base was going to stay open but that it was then closed. Let us hear how many bases will be closed. Let us hear the full sad story of how many jobs will be lost, how many bases will be closed and what the overall effect will be.
I shall listen carefully to the Minister. I hope that he will take on board the points that we made at our meeting with him this morning. We wanted a guarantee that when the Bill has been passed it will not be an excuse for getting rid of people now in the regiment. They are entitled to be in the merged regiment and they need to have a guarantee of that. The Act says, "may" instead of "shall" in one place, but even if it is changed to "shall" it may not cover the point that I am trying to make. Every member of that regiment, so long as there is no disciplinary charge against

him, who is entitled to remain in the current regiment should be guaranteed a place in the merged regiment. We need an absolute assurance on that.
The point about resigning is very important in the circumstances of security. If a man is threatened, he may have to resign and clear his family out of the area. The 30 days should be kept.
In many ways these proposals come at a very bad time for our Province. I thought that it was a very wise thing that, in the midst of a tit-for-tat uprising of violence in the Province, the Secretary of State called out the UDR, and they were very effective; we got over that particularly severe time of killings. I should have thought that the Government would concentrate on using the UDR more. We are told that it needs to be cost-effective, but it is the cheapest form of security, costing less in a year than the Royal Ulster Constabulary costs in a week. That is something that we need to face up to as well.
In large measure, in certain areas where the UDR now operates people will feel defenceless. This sends the wrong message to the IRA—the wrong message at the wrong time. The UDR has come of age and has proved its effectiveness. It has seen 21 years of continual service and has earned royal honour. To merge it now will bring ignominy to its members and be an insult to Her Majesty who came over and praised the four battalions and gave them their colours.
We have been told that the name of Ulster cannot be used to describe any British regiment in the future. The name of Ulster has a greater right to be part of the name of a British regiment today than ever before, because it is the only part of Ireland that is still in the United Kingdom. The name should remain in the regiments of our Army.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I desire to say only a few words on Second Reading because I have no substantial disagreement with what the Minister said in inviting the House to approve the Bill. In that respect, notwithstanding the passion and, I acknowledge, sincerity of the contribution of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), I regret that I cannot accept what I understand to be his central thesis—that some kind of conspiracy is afoot, the purpose of which is to do some damage to either the reputation or the effectiveness of the Ulster Defence Regiment. I do not believe that such a thesis is justified in the light of the circumstances outlined by the Minister. I should have preferred this matter not to be pushed to a Division, but if one is called my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will support the Government.
The issue to which we should address our minds is perhaps not the tradition of either of the regiments about which we are concerned but the effectiveness of the security arrangements which we will be able to achieve in Northern Ireland if this amalgamation proceeds. It is that and that alone that should be the justification for our decision.
I listened with some interest to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North when they said that the low percentage from the Roman Catholic community who serve in the Ulster Defence Regiment was, in essence, an aim and objective of the IRA. If it was such, it has been manifestly successful, but we must accept the reality that the consequence is that inevitably the Ulster Defence Regiment is more readily identified with one tradition in


Northern Ireland than with the other. I do not doubt that the IRA, faced with an amalgamated regiment drawn from a much wider religious base, will endeavour to do the same again, but it will be the success and the strength of the amalgamated regiment that will be the best defence against that.
If the amalgamated regiment comes into being, subject to some qualifications here or some reservations there, its ability to provide the means by which the potential campaign of the IRA is to be defeated will be substantially prejudiced. There may be difficulties in creating a regiment which, for the foreseeable future, will be able to demand the support and confidence of the whole community, but that does not mean to say that we should not face up to these difficulties and endeavour to defeat them.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North commented on the fact that there are certain parts of the political life and of the religious life of the Province which had not yet been heard to say that, if it is desired to create a regiment which commands the support of the whole community, members from all sections of the community should join. I believe that they are wrong not to do that, but I also believe that they may be encouraged to do so in the future if they are satisfied that the regiment which is the subject of the Bill is one which, at least in the first instance, reflects a much wider religious base than does the UDR.
All those right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken have mentioned the bravery of those who serve in the Ulster Defence Regiment. A curious and dangerous feature of their service is that they are, uniquely, at risk all the time. They are at risk in their military role and they are equally at risk when they give up the military role and return to their communities. It might be said that in some respects they are more at risk in their own homes than when they are on patrol. That requires no ordinary soldiering but a very high level of individual responsibility and bravery.
Just as it is my proposition that the relatively narrow religious base from which the UDR is drawn reflects the extent to which the regiment enjoys the confidence of the whole community, so I accept freely that the bravery of those from the Roman Catholic tradition who join the Ulster Defence Regiment must be regarded as of an extraordinary order. They and their families, in particular, have been the subject of deliberate targeting by the forces of terrorism. I believe that the merger will more easily help those individuals, and others in the amalgamated regiment, to fulfil that degree of enhanced responsibility that soldiering in Northern Ireland necessitates.
In relation to the 17 people to whom reference has been made and to any others from British regiments who have been arrested or perhaps convicted of criminal acts in the course of their military service in Northern Ireland, I say: there is no place in the British Army for anyone whose standards and whose regard for the rule of law are other than the highest. Anyone, of whatever rank, who does not fulfil those responsibilities should be rooted out. I have no doubt that the Minister and I would be of one mind on that subject.
There are sound military justifications for what the Bill seeks to achieve. I believe that people from the UDR will be more effective if they are brought more fully into the British Army, and that the high professional standards of the British Army that will be available in the amalgamated

regiment more readily than they have been in the UDR in the past are bound to enhance the capability of the members who previously served in the UDR.
With an amalgamated regiment, it must be right to provide a proper career structure for all who wish to take advantage of it. Surely it must be right, too, to provide a proper career structure and career opportunities for everyone in the new regiment who may have skills and ability that would entitle them to transfer to other Army units and detachments elsewhere in the United Kingdom forces.
We should not forget that the purpose of the Bill is to assist in the fight against terrorism, whatever motive the terrorist may have. All military means should be available to defeat terrorism. The House is united on that matter. The political consequences of the amalgamation will serve only to enhance the effectiveness of the military means at the disposal of the General Officer Commanding in Northern Ireland.

Mr. William Ross: The hon. and learned Gentleman has just told the House that he believes that the Bill is designed to defeat terrorism. Does he really think that if it were not for all the other changes being made in the armed forces the Bill would have been introduced anyway?

Mr. Campbell: I cannot say. Amalgamations of mainland regiments have been controversial, too, but—with the exception of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland—I do not believe this amalgamation to be controversial at all. Even if the amalgamation had been suggested outwith the ambit of the "Options for Change", I should still have supported it because the central thrust on which it is based is valuable, and should be supported.
The House listens to a catalogue of horror of events in Northern Ireland. For me, at least, the repetition of such events increases rather than diminishes their effect, and it also increases my frustration. If that is true for me, how much more true must it be for the Secretary of State, who has been in the Chamber for most of the debate, but who is not here at the moment?
I imagine that that frustration is felt, too, by those who are democratically elected to represent Northern Ireland constituencies in the House. They live in the communities ravaged by the activities of terrorists. Their lives are subject to the inconvenience and the grief that terrorism brings.
The Bill will not resolve the current problems in Northern Ireland. If any of us had a simple solution I fancy that we should have found it long ago. But, especially in the light of the speech by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, I hope that the Bill will help to provide conditions in which the difficulties in Northern Ireland may more easily be tackled.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I shall support the Bill, but more in the hope that it will achieve its objectives than with any conviction that that will be the case.
I believe that I speak as the only Royal Irish Fusilier in the House of Commons. My regiment, with the Royal Ulster Rifles and the Royal Innniskilling Fusiliers, now forms part of the Royal Irish Rangers—a regiment which came into existence in 1968, and is, of course, one half of the regimental collaboration outlined in the Bill.
My regiment was the 87th/89th Regiment of Foot, raised in 1793. It had a proud and distinguished history. It captured the first Napoleonic eagle to be taken by a British regiment, at Barrossa, in the Peninsular war. It has had many battle honours, and its museum and regimental headquarters were at the old Gough barracks in Armagh.
Like any other proud regiment, I do not think that it found its subsumation into the Royal Irish Rangers the easiest of the many problems that it has had to overcome in its 175 years of existence. However, that amalgamation went better than anybody had dared believe it would, even if it meant a new name for the regiment, new brothers in arms and a new depot. I hope that the same will be true of the amalgamation that we are debating. Perhaps the word "Rangers", with its echo of the Connaught Rangers, made the Irish Fusiliers feel a certain kinship with other distinguished Irish regiments which now exist only in pages of military history.
So the Royal Irish Rangers became Northern Ireland's own regiment in 1968. But, as was the case when I was with the Fusiliers, it still drew a high percentage of its intake from south of the border. The Irish, whether they be Ulstermen or from south of the border, make good soldiers. They also make good field marshals. I have only to remind the House of Field Marshal Lord Alanbrooke, Lord Alexander, Lord Montgomery and Sir Gerald Templer, to underline that point.
The Irish Fusiliers had both an Anglican and a Catholic padre because of the number of soldiers from both denominations serving in the regiment. If one wanted an example of the fact that both sides of the community can live and work together, there could be no better illustration. I cannot recall any incident involving sectarianism while I was serving with the regiment. Today, I understand that 30 per cent. of those serving in the Royal Irish Rangers are Catholics.
What is more, after all the years in which Irish regiments were kept out of Northern Ireland because of concern that their presence might cause friction between the two communities, the Irish Rangers completed two successful tours of duty in the Province, in 1990 and 1991.
I make those points to underline the fact that the three traditional Northern Ireland infantry regiments have already endured the tremendous upheaval of giving up their separate histories, identities, depots, and individual traditions to create the Royal Irish Rangers only 24 years ago. Having made that amalgamation work, they are now being asked not only to forgo one of their two regular battalions, but to accept the disappearance of the regiment into an entirely new unit, the Royal Irish Regiment, which its proposed make-up would seem to make unique in the Army.
That will mean much more than a name change, a new cap badge and a new regimental depot at Ballykinler. Effectively, it will involve the creation of a different kind of regimental structure, even if there will be increased possibilities of promotion for its members.
I recognise that some regiments which are disappearing altogether as a result of "Options for Change", and others which are undergoing huge changes, may consider that the Royal Irish Rangers are luckier than some; but I still

believe that an amalgamation with the Ulster Defence Regiment is not the same as uniting two English line regiments into one.
The Rangers and the UDR have a very different pedigree. I make that statement with the memory of a conversation that I had in Northern Ireland in 1970 with Brigadier Ormerod, one of the first senior commanders of the UDR—as it happens, he was a former Irish Fusilier. I realised with what high hopes he viewed the new regiment, with its avowed intention of becoming a non-sectarian internal security force within Northern Ireland, a bit like the B Specials, but drawing its support from both sides of the community. A non-sectarian home guard seemed to be the ideal answer to the terrorist, and initial recruitment to the UDR seemed to bear out that hope. At the end of our conversation, I remember Brigadier Ormerod saying to me: "Now it's up to you politicians to get the politics right"—as if, with the UDR, the politics of internal security had been resolved.
In the early months of the UDR, it seemed as if the regiment would be able to recruit from both sides of the community, and at one time, as so many hon. Members have said, almost 20 per cent. of its members came from the Catholic section of the community. The regiment was not as large as it is today, so the figure of 20 per cent. can be misleading. In the past 20 years, that component has dwindled to the present figure of between 180 and 200 members from the minority community, in a regiment comprising 6,000 men. As everyone has said, they are very brave people, because they know with what studied ruthlessness the IRA has made off-duty Catholic members of the UDR its special target, both to intimidate those who might think of joining and to encourage the idea that the UDR is essentially a sectarian force.
Sadly, a small number of the regiment have added weight to that charge; as has been said today, 17 have been convicted of murdering 15 Catholics, although serious doubt remains about the culpability of those called the "UDR Four". Other members have been convicted of lesser offences, so much closer screening of applicants has now become standard practice.
As a result of the Bill, will those who join the Royal Irish Regiment have to go through the same screening process, or will it apply only to the home service battalions of that regiment? Will my right hon. Friend the Minister say something about that when he winds up? It would seem difficult to avoid that vetting procedure if we are not once again to find that charges are made against members of the force, yet I cannot see how, in an Army unit, it would be fair to have one rule for the home battalions and another for the regular one.
The regiment has taken more than 220 fatal casualties, and about 450 members have been wounded. Its 6,500 men and women provide 11 million man hours of military service every year, and the regiment has provided an essential element in the security set-up in the Province. At no time has that brave regiment deserved the statement made about it in a BBC "Panorama' programme:
This regiment of Protestants is part of the problem it was intended to solve.
Nor does the regiment deserve the equally dismissive remark by the previous Irish Foreign Minister, Mr. Gerry Collins, who said on television:
The UDR has no role to play as presently constituted.
Mr. Collins was speaking as a Minister of a country that was a joint signatory to the Anglo-Irish Agreement,


which was designed to produce peace, stability and reconciliation, but which has yet to show that it can achieve even one of those objectives. I hope that the words of Mr. Collins have had no bearing on the changes that we are debating tonight. He spoke at a time when the Republic finds it difficult to mount a border police task force of more than 40 or 50 men. When one considers that it is a 300 mile-long border, that is wholly inadequate by anyone's standards. His words, like those of "Panorama", must have been sweet music to the IRA in its attempts to discredit the UDR. That brings me to my concern about the amalgamation.
The security problem in Northern Ireland has gone on for 22 years. From time to time, things seem to go better and terrorist incidents fall off. We hear that troop numbers are to be reduced. In the House, we pass improved criminal legislation. Police forces are strengthened. Then there is another upsurge in violence, as is happening at present, more troops are sent out to the Province; and so it goes on, year in and year out, but the terrorism always goes on at some level.
We now see the ugly development of tit-for-tat sectarian murders. I presume that those who carry them out belong to a generation different from those who were leading terrorism at the beginning of the troubles. Whatever the case, the sectarian killings mounted from the Protestant loyalist side of the community seem to carry an implication—a hint—that public confidence in the ability of the security forces working within the present constraints of the law to defeat terrorism is wearing thin.
These people take matters into their own hands on the basis, "If you kill one of us, we will kill one of you"—a sectarian lynch law. Such a development carries with it many dangers, including a greater escalation of violence. If it is to be stopped, public confidence must be restored, and that must mean a reappraisal of the present security policy and of the role of each of the services involved in it.
The UDR was raised and recruited to be an internal, non-sectarian security force. It began with a large part-time element, and even today that element is still more than 50 per cent. of the total strength. Now, instead of being an exceptional regiment for an exceptional task, the UDR will become part of a new northern Irish regiment—the Royal Irish Regiment—which itself will represent two traditions.
One tradition is that of the Royal Irish Rangers, a Regular Army regiment derived from the three long-established infantry regiments to which I have referred, serving on all fours with other infantry units in the Army. It goes abroad as they do, which may be one of the reasons why some cross the border to join it. That regiment and its traditions are now to be linked with the internal security force—the UDR.
The hope seems to be that the merger will give the new regiment the traditions of the Rangers and of the Northern Irish Brigade from which it sprang, and a new professionalism for its home service battalions because of its being part of a Regular Army formation. It is hoped that the Royal Irish Regiment will continue to be able to attract as high a percentage of recruits from the Catholic community as the Rangers did. All those objectives are admirable, and I hope that they will be achieved, but I wonder whether they are as easily attainable as the Minister would have us believe.
I presume that some consideration was given to those objectives and to a similar regimental structure when the

UDR was first considered in 1970. I presume that the difficulties of creating an homogenous but hybrid regiment were considered at that time to be too difficult to resolve, especially as the two tasks of the regiment as it is now to be constitued are almost mutually exclusive. Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether the regular battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment will also perform duties in Northern Ireland alongside the home service battalion or whether it will always be deployed outside the Province?
How easy will it be to create a single regiment to which everyone will feel the same loyalty when it will comprise four different categories of soldiers? There will be regulars designated for service all over the world; regulars confined to Northern Ireland; part-timers to serve in the Province; and Territorials. Although I hope that the amalgamation will produce the effects desired by the military planners, I have considerable misgivings that the new regiment will inevitably be tainted by the political climate of Northern Ireland, with its sectarian intimidation, in a way which did not happen to the Royal Irish Rangers and thus kept it out of the present troubles. I also fear that that may make the task of the home service battalions of the new Royal Irish Regiment if anything more difficult to achieve than was the case with the UDR.

Mr. David Trimble: It is entirely appropriate, when the UDR is being merged into a new regiment, that one should begin by paying tribute to the thousands of men who, over the past 20-odd years, have served the whole community excellently within that regiment. I shall not go into that tribute in great detail. Comments have been made by hon. Members of all parties and I know that the men will appreciate the sympathy and good will which have been expressed here this evening, and the recognition of the tremendous sacrifice that so many Ulster men have made in their service in that regiment.
Reference has been made also to the small percentage of the minority community in Northern Ireland still serving within the UDR. Some 18 per cent. was achieved when the regiment was first formed, with an enrolment figure at that time of some 4,000, but as a result of intimidation by the IRA, that percentage has now dropped to 2 to 3 per cent., or between 150 and 200 men.
I wish to say a special word about that small number of Roman Catholics from Northern Ireland who, despite all the pressures, continue to serve. Curiously, it is a smaller percentage than that within the Royal Ulster Constabulary, some 8 per cent. of which is Roman Catholic. As the RUC has a total strength of some 12,000 men, 8 per cent. means about 1,000 people. Therefore, some 1,200 Ulster Catholics actively serve in the security forces to defeat terrorism. That is many times more than the number of Roman Catholics in Ulster actively engaged in Republican terrorism, which is a sobering thought. There is no reason to doubt that the number of people actively involved in Republican terrorism at any one time is between 200 and 500, so they are outnumbered several times by the Ulster Catholics serving in the security forces.
I mention that balance not simply to pay tribute to Ulster Catholics serving in the security forces but to draw attention to the skewed concern expressed by Roman Catholic community leaders and politicians, who are constantly concerned to ensure that the security measures taken, legislation passed and action undertaken by the


Government should not bear too hard on the poor terrorists. They do not express the same concern about the larger number of their community and flock who are actively engaged in the fight against terrorism and who, in many cases, pay a very high price. That contrast says much about the attitudes, loyalties and sympathies of the people who express that inappropriate concern.
A further question with which I should like the Minister to deal when he winds up the debate was sparked when I read the otherwise excellent brief prepared by the Library, which says:
The UDR does not patrol West Belfast Londonderry or the border area of South Armagh, nor does it engage in crowd or riot control.
Will there be any limitation or prohibition on the service of the new regiment? Will it be limited to certain geographic areas and told not to enter other areas which we refer to as "bandit country", which are virtually under the control of terrorist organisations, thus leaving those areas under terrorist control? Will there be certain forms of service or activity in which that regiment cannot engage? Restrictions such as those mentioned in the brief are not realistic and I hope that the assimilation of the UDR into the rest of the Regular Army will be accompanied by assimilation of the service that they undertake and the areas in which they undertake it.
As the Minister knows, my hon. Friends and I feel strongly, as does the wider community in Northern Ireland, about the name of the regiment. We bitterly regret the fact that the term "Ulster" will disappear and that the regiment will instead be called the Royal Irish Regiment. I appreciate that a certain cast of mind on this side of the Irish sea is unable to recognise the existence of Ulster and prefers simply to use the term "Irish" at every opportunity. It fails to recognise the culture and identity of those hon. Members who represent Ulster. The name may simply reflect that blindness to our identity and traditions, but it is particularly unfortunate because I understand that there used to be a Royal Irish Regiment that was recruited in the Dublin area. It was disbanded when the 26 counties seceded from the United Kingdom in 1922. To revive a title associated with Dublin and apply it to Ulster is particularly maladroit at present.
The Minister said that the new title reflects composition—I presume that he meant the composition of the Royal Irish Rangers—and reference has been made by several speakers to the composition of the Royal Irish Rangers. I regret to say that those references were not particularly accurate. Again, I refer to the Library's brief:
In contrast to the UDR, the Royal Irish Rangers present a more equal reflection of the Northern Ireland population. Around 30 per cent. of the regiment is Catholic, with approximately 15 per cent. coming from the Irish Republic".
That figure of 30 per cent. has been quoted by several hon. Members this evening, but I am sorry to say that it is not accurate. Way back in October, I tabled a question asking for a breakdown of the Royal Irish Rangers by nationality and religion. The holding answer appeared in Hansard. I then received a letter, which was a curious way to proceed. I am not sure why the letter could not have appeared as an answer in Hansard. It could then have been available to all hon. Members. Naturally, I circulated my letter to people who were interested.
It may be appropriate if I now put that answer on record so that everyone will know the precise breakdown

of the Royal Irish Rangers, as given to me in the letter from the Earl of Arran. The information shows the position as at mid-October last year. It says that, of the officers, 63 come from Great Britain and 32 per cent. are Roman Catholics; 49 come from Northern Ireland and 12 per cent. are Roman Catholics; 13 come from the Republic of Ireland and 77 per cent. are Roman Catholics. Of the other ranks, 382 come from Great Britain and 38 per cent. are Roman Catholics; 836 come from Northern Ireland and 11 per cent. are Roman Catholic; 70 come from the Irish Republic and 94 per cent. are Roman Catholic.
I deduce from those figures that, in the regiment as a whole, 24 per cent. are Roman Catholics. Some people may say that the difference between 24 per cent. and 30 per cent. is not significant, so why quibble about it? But the number from the Republic of Ireland is not 15 per cent.; it is only 83 people, which is 5·9 per cent. There is quite a difference between 6 per cent. and 15 per cent.
I mention those points because so many hon. Members said earlier in the debate that they hoped that the mix within the Rangers would carry over to the UDR, into the new regiment, and somehow affect that. But when we consider the breakdown of the existing Rangers, we can compare the small percentage of persons from the Republic of Ireland with the small percentage of Catholics from Ireland. The great bulk of Catholics from the Rangers are from England. Although they may be of Irish descent, it still makes a difference, which hon. Members will appreciate.
Of the total number of people in the regiment, breaking them down by origin, 62·6 per cent. come from Ulster, 31·5 per cent. from Great Britain and 5·9 per cent. from the Republic of Ireland. The 1,400 men in the Rangers together with the 6,500 men presently in the UDR will form the total regiment. We are told that 750 of the 8,000 will drop out.
It is obvious that the bulk of the men in the new regiment will he men who are at present in the Ulster Defence Regiment. That offers the prospect of the new regiment reflecting more accurately the character of the existing UDR rather than the Royal Irish Rangers. I appreciate the concern of the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) who feared that the Rangers, of whom he is justly proud, would be somewhat swamped—that is my word, not his—in the new regiment.
I underline my dislike of the title of the new regiment. To be told that the word "Irish" is used to reflect recruitment from the Republic of Ireland, when only about 5 per cent. of its smaller element will come from the Republic, is a vicious case of the tail wagging the dog. The title is not appropriate. As the Minister knows, we would have preferred the title of the new regiment to reflect its origins and its character, and be called the Royal Ulster Regiment, or something of that sort.
The Minister said that senior officers in the Royal Irish Rangers welcome the merger. I am sure that they do, and I am not surprised about that. Under the "Options for Change" review, it was inevitable that, even if nothing else happened—given the reductions and mergers in other regiments—the Rangers would drop from two battalions to one. The Royal Irish Rangers would probably have lost the depot in Ballymena and have had to share another depot on the mainland with other regiments. The Rangers would have lost their character and identity as a result. No doubt, the officers in the Rangers who welcome the merger see it as a way of keeping some of the regiment's identity


in Ulster and enabling them to command a much bigger organisation than would have otherwise been the case. However, I believe that, within the UDR, there is much unease. Some people are opposed to the merger and some have been persuaded that it is a good idea on the grounds of the wider opportunities and so on that the Minister and others described. However, the best way to describe the views of the majority of men is that of unease, compounded by suspicions arising out of past changes and mergers.
We have been told that the merger is Army-driven, in the sense that the decision was largely influenced by the Army's views, but I do not think that the scheme can be divorced from the relentless political pressure that has come from the Republic of Ireland, from Irish nationalist politicians and from other community leaders in Northern Ireland who have attacked, particularly, the part-time element. That factor cannot be left out. In addition, the scheme cannot be divorced from the pressures generated by the "Options for Change" review. Those two factors point to a reduction in, if not a phasing out of, the part-time element. The Army is being reduced in size from about 50 battalions to 36 infantry battalions, leaving the Gurkhas out of the account. I am not sure why the Gurkhas are banned from coming to Northern Ireland—it is not because of our racism. They would be made welcome by my constituents. Unfortunately, the Army seems to regard it as impossible to deploy them, and that leaves 36 battalions.
Hon. Members will know that, under present arrangements, up to 20 battalions may have to serve in Northern Ireland in one year. That figure is made up of the six battalions that are on a two-year stay, up to a dozen battalions on four-month tours and one or two spearhead battalions on tour. In an army of 36 battalions, that load cannot be sustained. The only solutions are to reduce drastically the total deployment in, and commitment to, Northern Ireland—which it may not be possible to do if current levels of terrorism increase—and drastically to reduce the number of units that are on short four-month tours or find another source of full-time men to replace the existing Regular battalions. It is from there that the Army-led pressure to reduce the part-time element will come.
The figures for last July show 3,500 part-timers in the UDR, and that number may be reduced to 1,000 or 1,500. The Army has said that it has no intention of phasing out the part-time element completely, but enough statements have been made over the years to make it clear that there is a desire to see the part-time element diminish. If the figure goes down to 1,000 or 1,500, giving another 2,000 to 2,500 full-timers, that is equivalent to three full-time Regular battalions. That would reduce the need to rotate Regular battalions in Northern Ireland. That is the Army-led pressure to reduce the part-time element. There is always relentless political pressure from republican and nationalist sources, and it is particularly targeted on the part-timers. I believe that those two factors are influencing the Army's future.
Another factor underlines why I believe that the way in which the Army is progressing is not desirable. As a result of "Options for Change", the infantry section of the Regular Army will be significantly reduced. I have been told that there will be about 10,000 compulsory

redundancies. Another 30,000 infantrymen may have to leave the Army if they are not re-engaged at the end of their service.
If up to 40,000 Regular soldiers had to leave their colours and there were opportunities within the full-time element of the new Northern Ireland-based full-time regiment, it would not be unreasonable to assume that a significant number of Regular soldiers who found themselves out of work or redundant would volunteer to join what would be the equivalent of a full-time UDR. There are already a significant number of Scotsmen and Englishmen serving in the UDR and, under the changes that I am envisaging, it is likely that that number will increase substantially.
I suspect that that move would be welcomed in some Army circles. There is anxiety about the reliability of the native Ulster troops not behaving themselves and doing something which is best left to others' imagination. It may be felt that the unit will be more reliable if it contains a higher percentage of Englishmen and Scotsmen. But is that wise?
The men who, on finding themselves no longer employed in the Regular Army, decide to come to serve in Northern Ireland in the equivalent of the UDR might not come out of the purest of motives. They may come because they have a score to settle. Reference has been made to the Stevens inquiry, which was sparked off by revelations about leakage of information from the security forces to loyalist terrorists which resulted in the targeting of republican terrorist suspects. One of the first such cases was that of Loughlin Maginn, a republican terrorist suspect who was murdered by loyalist terrorists. The information targeting Mr. Maginn was leaked from the UDR. Two UDR men, one of whom was an Englishman, were charged in connection with the offence.
It is ironic that the Irish Republic, which concentrates its fire on UDR men, likening them to the equivalent of the hated B Specials, may be about to create a new scenario involving the sons of the black and tans. I wonder if that is wise—I am sure that it is not. I have no desire to see people from England and Scotland excluded from serving with new regiments—indeed, many of them are welcome—but the danger is that they may be coming with scores to settle.
A rundown in the part-time element is in itself undesirable. Contrary to what some say, there is a need for a militia-type operation and organisation to deal with terrorism. A locally based security force with local knowledge is of great assistance. It would be undesirable to lose such local knowledge and the ability to share around local men. That is why I have grave reservations about the merger—it leads in the wrong direction.
There is a clear need, too, for welfare support. The UDR is under unique pressures because its members—and the men of the new regiment—serving in Northern Ireland will always be under threat, on duty, off duty, when trying to relax and even for years after they have retired. Consequently, there is a significant need to provide them with good welfare support so that, in the terrible event of men being killed or injured, their families can he supported. I know that the UDR does a considerable amount of valuable work in trying to support the families and widows of men who have lost their lives in the emergency.
I understand that the formal arrangements for welfare in the UDR go further than those made in the Regular


Army. The families of soldiers who die in Northern Ireland and who served in the Regular Army find that they do not receive the same formal support from the Army. They may receive a certain amount of informal support from the regiment's trusts and benevolent associations. I hope that, with the UDR's greater assimilation into the Regular Army, its welfare arrangements will not be prejudiced.
Sometimes there is a little friction between UDR men and Regular officers, particularly officers who come into the UDR and do not appreciate the need for welfare. But it is needed, not just because of the desirability of looking after widows and the children of the bereaved but because a locally recruited regiment serving in a locality should not be seen to be less than caring for the families of those who have made sacrifices. If it were seen as less than caring, that would strike a real blow at recruitment and morale. We need to sustain and improve those welfare facilities and I trust that they will not be prejudiced by the UDR's assimilation into the Army.
Some hon. Members have already referred to the sad fact that, over the years, some members of the UDR have gone off the rails. We have been told the number of those who have been convicted of murder—unjustly, in a couple of cases—and of other offences. I do not want to suggest that the Army should be less than rigorous about checking whether men are improperly engaged in activities, detecting them and, if they are found to be involved in illegal activities, subjecting them to the full force of the law. I am, however, disturbed by a recent incident that took place in December not far from my constituency. Three members of the Cookstown company of the UDR were arrested and taken to Gough barracks, where they were interrogated under the prevention of terrorism legislation. They were suspected of involvement in the loyalist terrorist killings that have taken place in recent years in Mid-Ulster.
What was disturbing about the incident was that the fact that these men were being questioned in connection with these crimes was immediately publicised. I do not know who leaked that to the press. It is conceivable that the leak did not come from the Army or from the Northern Ireland Office; but, as the information was leaked to the press not only in Northern Ireland but in London, that suggests that it might have come from the Northern Ireland Office. Leaking the fact that those men had been arrested and questioned in connection with those crimes was as good as fingering them. It would be easy enough for republican sympathisers to discover which men had been arrested. I know for a fact that one of the men who was arrested and subsequently released was, within a matter of days, the target of a terrorist murder attempt.
There being no evidence against the men, they were released. They were entitled to the presumption of innocence, but they were immediately dismissed from the service. Only a few days after their release from Gough barracks, they were told that they had been dismissed and were given less than 24 hours to get their kit out. Thereafter they were for ever barred from entering the UDR base and prevented from joining the UDR ex-service men's association.
If the security forces had reason to believe that men in the service were engaged in terrorist activities, it was quite right to take action against them. I cannot tell whether

those men were as pure as the driven snow, but they were entitled to the presumption of innocence. Two factors in the case were distasteful. First, these men had served the community at risk to their own lives—whatever else they had done. For that reason alone they are entitled to a little more consideration than they were given. Secondly, what was the source of the suspicion? I asked the men what they had been questioned about while in custody, thinking that that might provide a clue as to the source of the information. Such information as emerged was exceedingly vague. The suspicion in my mind is that the real source was the east Tyrone brigade of the IRA: the IRA decided to manufacture some suspicions and to feed them, directly or indirectly, through political representatives to the security forces—and then to sit back and laugh while those forces took out three men from the local company.
I should have mentioned earlier that the three men were a corporal, a sergeant and a colour sergeant. They were described to me by officers in the regiment as three of the best men in the company—the sort of men one would like at one's side when in a tight spot. I suspect that, having fed in the information, the IRA sat back laughing while the Army took out three of its best men, disposed of them and disrupted the morale of the unit.
I hope that there was an extremely good reason for doing that. Neither the Minister nor I can judge at the moment. One of the differences between the Regular Army and the UDR—it is noticed and felt by the men—is that when a Regular soldier gets into trouble his comrades and the officers of his regiment rally round and try to help him. If a UDR man gets into trouble, he is thrown out, forgotten about and will not be helped, no matter what his circumstances are. That is a sad contrast and I hope that it will not persist in the new regiment. I hope that the same consideration that is given to Army men will be shown to men serving in the Royal Irish Regiment.

Mr. William Ross: Would my hon. Friend, with his legal experience, care to take this matter a bit further? Supposing one of these people were murdered by the IRA, would his family be able to claim compensation or would they be barred from claiming it on the ground that the man had been suspected of terrorism?

Mr. Trimble: That would depend on the position that the Northern Ireland Office took with regard to the application. What my hon. Friend suggests is theoretically possible, but then one must remember that the Northern Ireland Office is ready to pay compensation not just to persons suspected of terrorism but to persons guilty of terrorism.
As can be seen from what I have said, we have considerable reservations about the merger. We will not divide the House on the issue, and if there is a Division we will vote neither for nor against the proposal so as to reflect our reservations and our desire that the proposal should succeed. We do not want to undermine the morale of a significant element of the security forces. The men feel uneasy and suspicious about the change, but I am sure that those same men will strive to make a good job of this, if they can. Her Majesty's soldiers have a distinguished record for rescuing the Army from bad plans and sometimes from poor generalship.

8 pm

Rev. William McCrea: I rise to speak feeling sad at heart because I represent many gallant members of the Ulster Defence Regiment who have lived through the most tragic years in the history of our Province. They have operated in dangerous circumstances and continue to do so, facing the enemy daily.
The people of Northern Ireland owe the UDR a deep debt of gratitude. Its soldiers have acted with fortitude and courage and the regiment has earned its place alongside the greatest of British regiments. Its name is revered by every decent law-abiding citizen. Ulster applauds the gallantry, diligence and sacrifice of the UDR and gratefully acknowledges the contribution of all those men and women who have served or are serving in the regiment.
Unlike his counterparts in other British Army regiments, the UDR soldier faces attack not only when he is on duty but when he is at home or, if he is a part-timer, at work, and even during hours of recreation. He faces attack even after his term of service with the regiment ends. He lives within reach of his enemy and is known by the enemy. For the remainder of his life or the duration of the conflict he will be a target. Given that sober reality, people should judge not the UDR but those who denigrate its service. I shall return to that issue.
We must examine exactly why we have reached the present situation. I listened carefully to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), in which he expressed in detail his worries and concerns. Having done that, how can he sit on the sidelines and not vote on this important issue? That is a disservice to the UDR and to the men and women who have served in it over the past 22 years. Every Ulster Member should register the strongest possible protest at the removal of a distinguished regiment which has served the British people of Northern Ireland with great courage and distinction.
I trust that the House will wise up to what it is doing and will reject the proposal to remove the Ulster Defence Regiment from the streets of Northern Ireland. Other issues must he addressed. Hon. Members have paid glowing tributes to the Ulster Defence Regiment. I therefore cannot understand why we should rush to get rid of the regiment before the election. Why is there such undue haste to pass the legislation and ensure the removal of the UDR? Perhaps Her Majesty had an inkling of what the Government intended to do when she came to the Province and put her seal of approval on the UDR—firing a shot, as it were, across the Government's bows. Despite glowing tributes from Her Majesty and from hon. Members, however, we are saying goodbye to the UDR and saying that we do not want it.
Those who do not vote against the Bill are accepting the end of the regiment. If hon. Members believe the glowing tributes to the value of the UDR and believe that the sacrifice that it has made and is making is worth while, they should not allow their names to be associated with the removal of the regiment. It is significant that on the day the Bill was introduced we gathered in the House to hear a statement about the worst monthly figures for many years for murder and other atrocities in the Province. We were told about the atrocities at Teebane and on the Ormeau road. Yet the Government thought that that was a due and proper time to signal to all and sundry that the Ulster Defence Regiment was to cease to exist. The Government will live to regret that signal because the vast majority of

those who serve in the regiment think that, once again, it was a signal showing that terrorism and those who parade black propaganda against the security forces in Northern Ireland can succeed. Northern Ireland has been well served by the gallant members of the UDR, and they could give equally gallant service in the future.
We are constantly told that the SDLP is the constitutional party of Northern Ireland. Its members are missing from the debate. They have no reason to come because their electorates are not bothered about the Bill. None of the people who vote for the SDLP or who choose to support it will be annoyed at the removal of the Ulster Defence Regiment. I suppose that SDLP Members are not here because they feel that others will do the dirty work for them and will put the knife in and betray. If the Bill passes into law it will be a gross betrayal of the UDR and those who serve in it. This is a sad day, because it marks the continuation of a policy of appeasement of the enemies of the United Kingdom. The Library reference sheet states:
The Army bill 1992 is in part a result of the reductions in the British Army undertaken under 'Options for Change'.
On 23 July 1991, the Secretary of State for Defence announced changes to the British Army structure and a number of amalgamations of regiments. He said:
we are taking the opportunity to bring the Ulster Defence Regiment more fully into the Army by merging it with the Royal Irish Rangers. The new regiment will comprise one battalion for worldwide service and up to seven battalions for service in Northern Ireland only".—[Official Report, 23 July 1991; Vol. 195, c. 1034.]
In a moment I shall develop the first statement, which is to be found in the House of Commons Library sheet.
The Army Bill 1992 is "in part" a result of the reduction in the British Army. What is the other ingredient? We find an answer in the reference sheet and in another statement issued by Government sources. In 1970, the Ulster Defence Regiment came into existence. Those who can recollect the situation at that time will remember the vilification of the Ulster Special Constabulary and its betrayal by the Government of the day.
There are few hon. Members in the House who can understand the betrayal felt by the people of Northern Ireland when the Ulster Special Constabulary was removed from the streets of Northern Ireland. Until that time, the IRA was held at bay—it was defeated because of the excellent local intelligence and the mode of operations carried on by the local community special constabulary.
As a result of the effectiveness of the USC in deterring IRA operations, nationalist republican politicians and leaders of the Roman Catholic Church agitated against the USC. The Government of the time decided to buy the suggested appeasement policy. That day marked a retrograde step for the safety of my constituents and of the people of Northern Ireland.
We have paid. When I say "we", I mean that the people of Northern Ireland—British subjects in Ulster—have paid a tremendous price in their own blood for that folly, mistake and betrayal. Whether people like it or not, I must say that, had the Ulster Special Constabulary been on the roads now, we would not be standing here, 22 years on, with a worse catalogue of tragedy, murder and destruction than we had at the time.
Consider what happened immediately afterwards. A signal was given then. The IRA accepted the signal that the Government were not willing to take it on and defeat it,


but would give in to the suggested appeasement. The IRA accepted that signal and its campaign of terror went into top gear.
If anyone needs to know what I am talking about, let him look at the statistics sheet that I have here. It is a graph which shows exactly what happened when the signal was given to the terrorists that the Government were not willing to take them on but bowed to pressure—the vilification and black propaganda used against the Ulster Special Constabulary. In this graph we notice that in 1970 there were 25 murders. Once the signal was given in 1971, there were 174 murders, and in 1972 there were 467 murders. Why? Because of the signal given by the useless Government of the time that they were not willing to take the terrorists on but that appeasement was the policy of the day.
One will never appease terrorists. One has to defeat terrorism and one can only do so with the expertise of local people who know terrorists and who know their hide-outs.
I have great respect for the young men in the other British regiments who come from across the water to Northern Ireland and I know many of them. When they come many of them do not know where they are. Two young men sadly experienced that on the Falls road. They did not know where they were and they went into a crowd of republican supporters. Tragically, they came to a sad and brutal end, as we all remember.
Therefore, it is a serious matter to give a signal to terrorists. That signal was given more than 20 years ago and the Ulster Special Constabulary was removed.
What happened as soon as the Ulster Defence Regiment was born? At the time we were told that the answer was a regiment which was more representative of the community. We were told that the Ulster Special Constabulary was the problem. Get rid of it and we would be well on the way to peace and everyone would accept the alternative. That was until the alternative came about.
So the Ulster Special Constabulary was moved aside and the UDR came in. No sooner was it formed than the agitation recommenced—this time against the UDR. It was no surprise to those of us who knew that appeasement does not pay—but it was a surprise to some—that the agitation came from exactly the same group who had put out black propaganda against the USC. Capitulation and appeasement encouraged greater demands, and agitation for the removal of the UDR started.
Just after that time, I remember driving down the road in my car, listening to an hon. Member of this House—who is missing tonight—on the radio. He had just campaigned for the removal of the USC, saying that it was the worst thing that had ever existed, that we needed a new regiment and that he promised to give it a fair wind. He has told the Minister and us the very same thing in the newspapers, although he is not telling us that today as he is not here. I heard the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) say that the UDR was even worse than the Ulster Special Constabulary. The Government accept that he is one of the "moderates" in a nationalist community. People who live in Ulster were not surprised by the agitation because they know that nationalists have never supported anything which supported Ulster within the United Kingdom.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) carried out a continual campaign of vilification of the Ulster Defence Regiment? So much so that no Unionist in the Assembly would sit when he was in the House because, after those attacks, so many men were murdered. A lot of UDR men were murdered at that time.

Rev. William McCrea: I confirm to the House the truth of that statement. Often after the vilification of the UDR by the hon. Member for Newry and Amagh there was an IRA atrocity. The IRA jumped on the bandwagon of that vilification and used it as its excuse to murder Ulster Defence Regiment personnel. The only people who know exactly how hard the people of Ulster took that vilification and how angry they have been are people who have visited and talked to the families in their homes. That situation has carried on until tonight. There has been no let-up in the campaign against the Ulster Defence Regiment.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) who spoke a few moments ago from the Government Back Benches gave us a clear understanding of the vilification and how strong it was. The sad feature is that whenever right hon. and hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies ask Ministers to condemn southern politicians for their meddling interference in the affairs of Northern Ireland, and especially those of the security forces, thus costing the lives of security force personnel, there is always a weak reply. It seems that no rebuke can clearly be given. I do not know what happens behind closed doors, but no encouragement is given to the community when foreign Ministers of a foreign country can vilify the forces of law and order of a part of the United Kingdom and United Kingdom Ministers cannot stand up for them, protest, and rebuke them to their face.
The oxygen for terrorist attacks was once again pumped out in republican propaganda against a body of men and women whose chief crime was to desire the defence of their home and hearth.
In a Library briefing—reference sheet 92/4, page 2, paragraph 4(a)—the UDR has been criticised by Catholics, it appears, for its alleged Protestant bias. These allegations have been supported by the Irish Government, who have called persistently for the UDR's disbandment. More than one third of the population of Northern Ireland is Catholic but Catholics represent only 3 per cent. of the UDR personnel. Surely that begs a question, and similarly it begs an answer. Were there no factors that gave rise to that representation? The answer is no; there are several relevant factors.
The new regiment was opposed from the beginning by the Social Democratic and Labour party. There was no fair wind. The Ulster Special Constabulary was out and a new bandwagon was rolling against the UDR. The Roman Catholic community has an 18 per cent. representation in the regiment and we have been told this evening that instead of a 30 per cent. representation in the Royal Irish Rangers the real figure is 24 per cent. That is close to the 18 per cent. who originally joined the UDR. What happened to reduce 18 per cent. to 3 per cent.? Did those people just disappear? Did they retire? Did they become weary of having to put on a uniform and go out? The answer is no to all those questions.
The truth is that members of the UDR who were Roman Catholics were harassed, harried, abused and


ostracised. By whom? Let me answer the question. That was done by the constitutional nationists who sit in the House and by the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church, who never once to this very night have supported the UDR and who have never called upon the members of the community to face the terrorists.
It is all very well to sit on the sidelines and criticise. It is lovely to be an armchair general sitting by the fire and having the privilege of criticising everything that is done by the security forces. That is very easy provided that that person does not ask any of his supporters to join the fight and face the terrorists. The members of the Roman Catholic community who joined the UDR—the 18 per cent. of its membership—found themselves ostracised at their place of worship, at their place of work, and within their families. This might be unpalatable to some people but it is the truth. Anyone who does not believe what I am saying should leave his ivory tower.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) talked about the clerical gentlemen in the Province. They should leave their ivory towers and come and see what is actually happening. They should experience what others have gone through. There were Roman Catholic UDR men who could not return to their families. In some instances their families did not want them. That was because they happened to put on the UDR uniform.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) talked about a young Roman Catholic member of the UDR whom he knew well. The undertaker would not bury him. It was necessary to bring in an undertaker from 25 miles away. That young man had committed one sin: he happened to wear the uniform of the UDR. He was murdered by the IRA and he could not be carried in peace to his grave. He was ostracised to the very place of his burial. That is what the 18 per cent. experienced. It is sad that there are some who are not here this evening to answer for their crimes.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that that has happened in police families as well. A sergeant in the town of Newry was murdered by the IRA. What happened? His grave was desecrated. It was opened to receive his body. He could not be buried by the local Roman Catholic Church. He had to be taken to Banbridge. He was a voter in my constituency and I was at the funeral. It took place not in Newry, where the man lived and had his family, but in Banbridge. As I have said, his grave was desecrated.

Rev. William McCrea: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. It must be realised that the majority of those in the Roman Catholic community who put on the uniform of the UDR, or that of the RUC, have to move from their place of residence. They are permitted to return only on certain occasions if their families are happy for them to come home. Only rarely are they allowed to return home to see their families, and only on particular occasions.
The Roman Catholic members of the UDR were pilloried and ostracised by their politicians and their church officials. They discouraged them—and "discouraged" is the mildest word that I can use in the circumstances. The Dublin Government unrelentingly opposed the UDR and used every opportunity to accuse it of being a force of hate against the nationalist community. If they were really interested, some might ask whether the

charge made by the Dublin Government and the nationalist representatives was justified. The answer lies in the real statistics.
Since 1970—that is 22 years ago—17 members of the UDR have been convicted of murder. It is right to say that that is 17 too many. It must he remembered, however, that it is being questioned whether four of the 17 were wrongfully convicted and sentenced. So we are down to 13, but 13 out of how many? There must be a proper perspective. The answer is 13 out of the 48,000 men and women who have passed through the ranks of the UDR.
There have been 13 bad apples. If a search was made of all the regiments of the British Army and of all ranks of the police forces throughout the United Kingdom, would there be a ratio equivalent to only 13:48,000? Did the 13 constitute a reason for a campaign of vilification? What did the hon. Member for Foyle say? In the midst of all this vilification and propaganda and Dublin saying that the UDR must be removed, the hon. Member for Foyle had to admit that only 0.28 per cent. of deaths in Northern Ireland troubles were attributable to the Ulster Defence Regiment, which is contrary to the black propaganda pumped out by some of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues who are against the UDR. He added:
Republican terrorists have killed 250 times as many, but successive Governments are still unfortunately playing around with that bunch of terrorist rats that are responsible for those killings in our Province.
Given that a much higher percentage of deaths were attributed to the rest of the British Army and even to the RUC, why was there no agitation to disband those forces? It is because it would not get a hearing—it would not get a wind. But when black propaganda against the UDR is put out, many run to listen. Also in the official document to which I referred is the statement that "many hundreds" of UDR members have been convicted of lesser offences—but they include even car offences.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North reminded the House of the Stevens inquiry, and of how all the vans, armoured cars, and machine guns were rolled out to capture UDR men at 6 o'clock in the morning and to bring them in. He did not tell the House of the words of an assistant chief constable, who said that the crime of the few who were found guilty was one of which he, or any of his officers, could have been found guilty at any time during their years of active service in the RUC.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann spoke of an incident in my constituency where, in recent days, three members of the UDR were also treated in a despicable fashion. No charges were brought, but they were thrown out of the UDR and told that they would never again be allowed on a UDR base. Will the Minister explain how the arrest of those three men was reported by the media just a few moments after it occurred? No charges were made against those men, but they were dismissed, and they remain the subject of suspicion.
I will tell the House of an incident involving an IRA man who was returning from the funeral of one of his IRA colleagues. When he was stopped at a checkpoint, he told the soldier on duty, "If you want to know who murdered the man whose funeral I attended today, here are the names." He took a book from the soldier's hand and wrote down the names of those who he said were guilty, and told the soldier to go and get them. We are now seeing IRA evidence behind the movements of certain members of the security forces.


Let us remember the 200 UDR men and women murdered by IRA terrorists. I could show right hon. and hon. Members a photograph taken at a wedding showing the bride, groom, best man, and a bridesmaid. The only one left alive today is the bride. The best man was murdered, the bridesmaid was murdered, and so was the groom. Of that wedding party, only one person remains alive. That is the kind of sacrifice made by people on the border whom the House has decided must go. They were members of the Ulster Defence Regiment. They did not join to travel the world—if they had wanted that, they would have joined other regiments. They joined the UDR to defend their homes and their hearths.
The Minister and others say that the change is being made to improve the regiment's career structure. I assure the Minister that the people in my constituency who joined the UDR did not do so for the sake of their careers, but to allow their kids to enjoy a career—to protect Ulster, and to bring it back to peace and stability so that their children would not have to grow up in the nightmare of terrorism that my kids have known.
My eldest daughter is 18, and not one day of her life has gone by without her witnessing trouble, violence, or tragedy in our Province. UDR men and women put on a uniform, not to have a career themselves, but to ensure that their kids would have the possibility of a career in whatever sphere of life they saw as their vocation.
Two hundred UDR men and women and 44 ex-UDR members have been murdered, and 377 seriously wounded, by IRA terrorists. In a recent attack in my constituency, the headmaster of a school in Castlederg who is a part-time UDR officer was driving to work in the early hours of the morning when he noticed a man walking a dog. It all looked simple. In the providence of God, he happened to look in his rear view mirror, and saw the man with the dog putting a walkie-talkie to his mouth—for he was the IRA scout man. The headmaster, realising that he would probably come under attack, took evasive action—and four gunmen immediately appeared to do him to death. Tonight he is in hospital but, thank God, he survived that murderous attempt.
The UDR has demonstrated its unfailing commitment to the peace of Northern Ireland. Tonight, the sacrifice made by the men and women of the UDR is being thrown back in their faces. The courage of that body of Ulster men and women is beyond words of commendation; yet action is being taken to remove that gallant force, which is urgently needed at a time of one of the bloodiest onslaughts that our Province has ever faced. The decision to remove the UDR at this moment cannot be condemned strongly enough.
The Bill heralds the end not of an era, but of the Ulster Defence Regiment. The Conservative party research department refers to "The End of the UDR," saying:
The Bill winds up the UDR at the end of June 1992".
I ask the Minister what happens if the Bill goes through. I trust that it is not a foregone conclusion, as it will not be if there are those who are willing to listen to the argument. But the Benches all around are empty. There is one hon. Member on the Benches of Her Majesty's Opposition for a Bill that could cost the lives of the people of Northern Ireland. That speaks volumes. When the vote comes—and it will come, the House will divide—hon. Members will come out of the woodwork. Why will they vote? Will they

vote because they have listened to the arguments or because they believe? No. They will vote because they are told to vote to take out the Ulster Defence Regiment. Talk about voting fodder!
Unfortunately, my constituents will pay the price. There is no doubt that very few of those who vote tonight will ever bother to meet a widow or to speak to a child who will suffer through their decision. It is just a routine, a very costly one.
There is money in the coffers of the UDR that was raised by the people of Ulster for the Ulster defence benevolent fund. It was raised for the UDR because of the sacrifice its members made, and for the widows and children who are left. What happens to that money? Does the UDR get it, or does it go to the new regiment?
We are told in the document that the merger has political advantage. That is the other part of it. It is political—it is a piece of political movement. It is a numbers game, so that the community can be told that it is a more representative regiment. Of course, it will be. There are two parts to the regiment: those who will be travelling the world and the others who will be staying. It will be most interesting to find out what percentage of those who join will be facing the terrorists in Northern Ireland and living in the community. This will be seen exactly. One can fool some of the people some of the time, but about the representatives who are facing the real brunt of this terrorism we shall not be fooled any of the time. Every action will be scrutinised.
Unfortunately, tonight the decision will be taken and it will mean the demise of one of the most gallant regiments that has ever faced a foe—a regiment which, had it been given the tools and the support, could already have finished the job on behalf of all the services of the United Kingdom.

Mr. William Ross: The need to have local people involved in local security forces in a terrorist situation is admitted by anyone who has ever taken the most casual glance at the terrorist organisations that have been faced not only by our own armed forces but by many others throughout the world. I believe that it would also be accepted that it is those local forces that do the most necessary work of building confidence in the communities in which they live and move, rather than the regular armed forces of either the state in question or an outside state coming in to help.
The Minister today agreed with that. He said that the Army and the RUC could not do the job without the Ulster Defence Regiment.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: indicated assent.

Mr. Ross: I am glad to see that he indicates assent to my words, because it means that he recognises with great clarity that the UDR is an absolutely vital component if the IRA is to be defeated and peace restored.
It is because the Minister has given certain assurances about the new regiment that, while we are not overjoyed, to put it mildly, by the appearance of the Bill, we are unwilling to vote against it, for that would send a signal to many members of the UDR that would not be completely accurate. But we shall certainly be keeping a fairly close


eye on the situation to see whether the assurances that have been given are fully honoured, not only in the immediate future, but in the long term.
The question has always been what sort of a force is needed to defeat a terrorist organisation and how it should be structured, trained and used. What is the job to be done by the UDR in Northern Ireland?
I am one of the few Members in this House who served in the Ulster Special Constabulary. I lived, and still live, in a nationalist area. Like the rest of that organisation, I was subject to a massive campaign of vilification, which had more to do with the vapours of Irish republicanism than with reality.
Unfortunately, it was not only the House that believed those stories. There was a weakness in the Stormont Parliament at that time, which allowed that force to be disbanded. There are those who say to me now that we could never have stopped the IRA at its present level, but the reality is that it was not at its present level at that time. I believe that, if that force had been used fully and comprehensively, the IRA would never have become the force that it is today.
I was proud to serve in that force. I recall very clearly even to this day the bitter resentment that I and many thousands of others who served felt—the resentment that I still feel and will carry to my grave. I will never forgive those who did that to the force of which I was a member. I am concerned this evening that there are those in the UDR who, if the assurances given are not honoured, will have the same feeling of bitterness against the Minister.
The UDR was raised initially to be locally based. It was supposed to be able to attract a large number of Roman Catholics. I do not want to rehearse all that has been said in this debate, but I hope that hon. Members who take a real interest in the security position in Northern Ireland and want to refresh their memories will read Hansard slowly and carefully.
We are told that, in the early days, the UDR was a representative force, but there are a great many Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland who are simply Republicans, and there is no way that any Republican could ever join a force which was designed to maintain the union. It was therefore representative of the Unionist population of Northern Ireland in the widest sense rather than of Protestants and Roman Catholics. That should be borne in mind.
The force was immediately attacked by the enemies of the Union, and it has been attacked by them right up to the present day. The Stevens inquiry was another sign of weakness, and it was one of the most foolish episodes with which we have ever had to live. It is the Government's job to keep the activities of the armed forces of the Crown under control, but the Nelson case—that whole strange episode involving Army intelligence—has left more questions in its wake than have yet been answered.
Anyone who thinks that, in a climate of terrorism, an agent can be put into any terrorist organisation and expected to have clean hands and live is a fool of the highest order. It simply cannot be done. I hope that, with the ending of that case, the intelligence network that is used against terrorists in Northern Ireland will be sorted out once and for all—that in future it will be controlled comprehensively and centrally, and properly run.
In his opening speech, to which I listened very carefully, the Minister said that changes had taken place in the force since its formation. Those changes have, among other

things, moved the force away from its former local character, which was one of the greatest strengths of the old B force. Slowly but surely, it was given more of a Regular Army structure. We had the part-timers; then we had the full-timers—the permanent cadre; now we have the nonsense about career prospects.
As the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) pointed out so clearly and forcefully, people do not join the UDR for a career; if they want a military career, they will go into the regular military forces. As soon as terrorism disappears, the UDR will shrink radically, and will probably disappear. The Minister knows that perfectly well. Most people who join the UDR join with the aim of defeating the terrorist organisation that is the source of the evil—the Provisional Irish Republican Army.
I listened with astonishment when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland told the House last Thursday that some 40 to 50 per cent. of those who are now being charged have no previous terrorist trace—in other words, that intelligence has not traced them in such a connection, and they have not been picked up before. Knowing the right hon. Gentleman as I do, I have no doubt that that is perfectly true, but it is still a very misleading statement to make in the House.
The general public will have been given the impression that the intelligence organisations of the security forces know about only 40 to 50 per cent. of active IRA men. That is highly inaccurate. Most of those who are charged are very new members of the IRA; they have not been charged before, because they have only just come to the attention of the police, and, given the psychological pressures that can now be exerted in the course of cross-examination, greenhorns will break. When the police arrest a dedicated, experienced gunman, they keep him sitting there for seven days, and then he walks out of the door and waves goodbye—until he is next picked up. He does not break.
The vast majority of those who are charged with and convicted of IRA and other terrorist activities are relative newcomers. The truth is that police intelligence in regard to the IRA is very good: the police have a very clear idea of the identity of most of the leading players.
The proposed change in the UDR takes us further down the road to an apparently ideal situation in which we have—as the Minister told us—a more professional force. I shall return to that word "professional". In reality, however, the essential nature of the force will remain the same: it will be a locally recruited and locally used force.
The change is portrayed as an attempt to introduce more Roman Catholics into the force. That is nonsense. If the Government are trying to confuse people by bandying statistics, they can forget it. People in Northern Ireland are not that stupid: the Unionist population are not that stupid, and I can tell the Minister that the republican element—including the IRA—are not either. They know perfectly well, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) pointed out—they will read Hansard tomorrow, too—that 24 per cent. of the Regular Army who are members of the Royal Irish Rangers are Roman Catholics. When the merger takes place, that proportion will be a sight less.
As the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster pointed out, the proportion of Roman Catholics in the locally used and recruited force—those who will be active on the roads—will not rise very much, unless they are drafted in from the


Regular Army; and the chances are that those who are now in the Regular Army did not join to spend their time on the roads of Northern Ireland. They joined to find a military career which would take them wherever the British Army went. Let us have a bit of honesty.
Let the Government not forget that the IRA says that it wants the British and their supporters out of Ireland. That was made clear to me again very recently. The same applies to Sinn Fein and its fellow travellers. In fact, I believe that members of Sinn Fein have to be members of the IRA, because, as it is the IRA army command that runs the outfit, their orders will not be taken if they are not members. The supporters to whom I refer include those sitting on these Benches, and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster. They include every Unionist who votes for the Union. The IRA is not interested in getting out British soldiers alone; it is interested in getting the British out, and the British are those who say that they are British—which means all of us.
The Minister said today that he wanted the part-timers retained. He said that they were an important element. They are more than that: they are the essential link—the living, vital link—with the local community from which they come. They are perhaps the most essential element in the whole structure. Without them, there is no UDR—no locally recruited and locally used force; there is a Regular Army force which is used in the area of recruitment, and that is a different animal.
There must be an easy way for UDR part-timers to join. There must be a relatively short-period of training, because they will lose their jobs if they stay away for too long. There must be no great change from the present conditions on which part-timers join, or they will not be there any more.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: indicated assent.

Mr. Ross: The Minister indicates assent. I am glad, because that means that he understands what we have been trying to say this evening.
These people should not be shifted from one end of the Province to the other; so far as is humanly possible, they should be used in their own immediate areas. That was the strength of the B force, and it is the real strength of the UDR part-timers—local men used among people they know.
I do not want to see part-timers brought into the force and then used for guard duties only. Men will not join to do guard duty. This time I do not see from the Government Front Bench assent to what I am saying, but I hope that, before I finish, that assent will be forthcoming. Those men need to be out on the road, and I hope that the Minister will be prepared to give me a guarantee that the part-timers will be used in that way. It is out on the road that they are most useful. People who know that they would not be used in that way simply will not join.
The Ulster Defence Regiment needs Northern Ireland officers—people born and brought up in Northern Ireland, people who know the local community, who know what has to be done, who know the sort of force they are dealing with. Any Regular Army officer who comes to the UDR must suffer a fair degree of cultural shock. UDR officers, as well as men on the ground, need training in anti-terrorist techniques. Combating terrorism is their

main role in life. Such people do not expect ever to face a Russian armoured attack on the north German plain; they are expected to deal with a gunman with a hidden gun in a back street, or a man with a bomb lying behind a hedge. It is a different world and a different job. That is the kind of activity on which their training should have concentrated in the past. I hope it was, and I hope that it will be so concentrated in the future.
We need a close interface with the RUC. The concept of the RUC as the leading body in the fight against the IRA must be tied very tightly into the whole anti-terrorist structure. The hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson), as always when we are dealing with Northern Ireland affairs, made an excellent speech. I am sorry that he has left the Chamber, and I am far more sorry that in a few weeks' time he will cease to be a Member. He has been a steadfast friend of Ulster, and, in respect of Northern Ireland matters, one of the few sane voices among Great Britain Members.
In an excellent speech the hon. Gentleman drew attention to the unique position occupied by the Greenfinches in the UDR. The unique nature of the Greenfinches underlines the unique nature of the UDR. The regiment developed from highly suspicious beginnings. In my view, it was a sop to the Unionist community. It changed and developed to meet the developing situation, and the Greenfinches were part of the change and the development. The UDR exists only because, 22 or 23 years ago, the Government got the security needs of the security situation wrong. At that time, they did not give any weight to Unionist opinion. I hope that they will now start to give weight to that opinion.
There is a very real and dangerous job to be done. The structure of the forces must be right, and I hope that the Government are getting it right. The training too must be right, as must the interface with the police. I said earlier that I had listened intently to the Minister when he talked about a more professional military body. It is all very well to talk about a more professional military body if one is facing an enemy in the Gulf, as happened last year, or dealing with a Russian armoured attack on the north German plain—which, thank God, it seems we shall never now have to do. But here we are dealing with a different situation, and the UDR must be more than a professional military body.
It has to provide an interface with the people on the ground, with the terrorists and with the police. It has to act as a back-up for the police, and do all these other things. I have always thought that what we in Northern Ireland need is something more like a police force than an Army force locally recruited. However, the Government have chosen not to go down that road. For 20 years, they have gone down another road. If there is to be a change, I hope that it will take account of some of our criticisms.
I believe that the IRA can be defeated, and the people in the UDR believe that the IRA can be defeated. But the Government have a part to play in the defeat. The views of my party and of the Democratic Unionist party have been put fairly forcefully to the Prime Minister and to Northern Ireland Ministers—not least during the past few weeks. I hope that what we are saying will be taken on board. If it is clearly recognised that the UDR is a unique force, and that the job that must be done by the locally recruited security forces in Northern Ireland is a unique


and vital component in the whole anti-terrorist operation, perhaps wisdom will prevail and we shall see the force steadily improve in its capacity to deal with terrorism.
I hope and pray that the Government have got it right. If not, the fair wind that everybody is trying to give the Government at present in respect of security will be to no avail, and we shall pay a very heavy price. It is always very difficult to reverse a mistake.

Mr. Neil Thorne: Any Bill designed to create a Royal Irish Regiment out of the Royal Irish Rangers and the Ulster Defence Regiment must start by paying a great compliment to those who have served in the two regiments. The sacrifice made by not only serving personnel but those who have retired from the regiments is very unusual. Such personnel find that their family, their social lives and everything they do in their business are affected by their membership of the regiment in which they have served. There is no doubt that those who have served have made a supreme commitment to the Union of Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
When we heard what the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) said about people who live on the border and the extent to which their lives were in jeopardy, we became aware of the sacrifices that they make, in that they are liable to be killed at any time and to have their families executed because of the way in which they have supported the Union.
When considering the problems, we must be clear about the fact that the people of Northern Ireland are being intimidated into staying away from the border areas. As many hon. Members as possible should visit Northern Ireland and stay for at least a weekend to experience some of the problems. I do not think that hon. Members fully understand and appreciate the problems that their colleagues in Northern Ireland have to face when visiting the homes of their constituents to commiserate with parents for the sacrifices made by sons and daughters on behalf of the Union.
The border areas come under much heavier pressure than any other area because terrorists seem determined to exclude any opposition in those areas so that they have free access back and forth across the border. If there is any limitation of that access, they feel threatened, as happened recently when a brave man was able, off duty, to use his weapon and to claim the life of one of the terrorists who was trying to take his life. Terrorists are trying completely to clear the area so that they have free access. When I was there, I had the unfortunate experience of visiting with a Northern Ireland colleague the family of someone who had been murdered the previous day. It is a very sobering experience to see what our colleagues with constituencies in Northern Ireland have to cope with.
We should compliment our colleagues because they are also in considerable danger whenever they are in Northern Ireland. They have to undertake an enormous amount of security discipline. Their own families are very much at risk. Some of our colleagues have been killed by terrorists—that is a real threat—so their advice bureaux and all the other constituency work that they undertake in the Province have that additional dimension. We must, therefore, respect and have special regard for what they say.
I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr.Ross). I have particular respect for him and for the knowledge that he acquired as a member of the Ulster special constabulary. Its members, with their very detailed knowledge of the ground that they covered and where the trouble points were likely to be, were able to keep a much closer eye on the people of the area than the security forces can do today. Even if members of the security forces are there for two years, they do not really get to know the people and the area in the same way as members of the special constabulary knew those with whom they went to school and grew up.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East was right when he went on to mention the need for anti-terrorist techniques and said that there is a special requirement for any force that operates in Northern Ireland. It is not the same technique that is required when one is preparing to defend the central plains of Europe. That does not mean to say that professional people are unable to acquire those skills, provided they have sufficient training to enable them to do so.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) thinks that the Bill is insensitive. I appreciate and understand his concern about the loss of the word "Ulster", but I point out to him that whenever one introduces a Bill of this sort it will be the wrong time and that whatever one tries to do there is bound to be some event in that period that makes it a bad time for such an announcement. We must grasp the nettle. If we believe that it is necessary to do something, the decision to do it must be taken.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) mentioned those who, having been made redundant, might be recruited from elsewhere in the British forces and he hoped that those who had old scores to settle would not take advantage of the opportunity to enter the Royal Irish Regiment. I think that his fears are unfounded, and I hope that a considerable number of people will be prepared to share some of their valuable experience by serving in this regiment.
Effectiveness of security arrangements and the rule of law are essential ingredients in what we are trying to achieve in this area. They must be extremely high on our list of priorities.
I welcome the Bill because I have found, from my experience as a member of the Select Committee on Defence and from meeting many members of the Ulster Defence Regiment, that members of the UDR are looking for a proper career structure. The Bill will give them that opportunity. It will give a variety of which they can take much greater advantage. When the Ulster Defence Regiment was first set up, it was believed that it would be on a part-time reserve basis; now, about 50 per cent. form part of a permanent cadre. So the situation has undoubtedly changed over the life of the regiment.
The regiment has performed extraordinarily well. I am not one of those who criticise it because of the number of bad apples that it has had—bad apples can be found in any group of people. Fourteen, even out of so many, is an unfortunate figure, but one has to accept it. The rest of the people play a very valuable and important role.
At the same time, we must acknowledge that there are other good reasons for changing the structure. The opportunity to introduce British, Irish and Commonwealth citizens for recruitment instead of just British citizens is important. As other hon. Members have


said, we hope that that will provide an opportunity for greater Roman Catholic involvement. I know that fears have been expressed, and it has been said, that when the Ulster Defence Regiment was first set up, it had many more Roman Catholics, but some of those have now left. I hope that we can introduce a new impetus in that direction, although I realise that as the Irish Republic becomes more prosperous we may not find it quite so easy to obtain recruits from the south as we have done in the past. Undoubtedly, the European Community has a lot to do with that.
We need to bring the personnel of the UDR into the structure of the rest of the Army. The correct and proper way to do that is through the creation of a new regiment—the Royal Irish Regiment. I strongly support the Bill.

Sir Philip Goodhart: Yesterday I re-read the debates that we had in the House in 1969 on the establishment of the Ulster Defence Regiment. The Committee stage of the Ulster Defence Regiment Bill was taken on the Floor of the House, and the Minister in charge was the present deputy leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I was a spokesman for the Conservative Opposition.
A hostile amendment to cut the proposed strength of the regiment from 6,000 to 4,000 was moved by the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), and 25 hon. Members supported it. The mover of the amendment became chairman of the parliamentary Labour party. Of the supporters of the amendment, one—the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot)—became leader of the Labour party; one—the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel)—became leader of the Liberal party; and one—the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)—is now the principal official Opposition spokesman on Northern Ireland.
During that long debate, which ran from 7 pm until 9.30 the following morning, the Conservative party and, of course, the Ulster Unionists, invariably supported the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook against the criticisms of the present principal Labour spokesman on Northern Ireland.
I recall that some Labour party rebels, including the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, argued that the new Ulster Defence Regiment was bound to become a replica of the B Specials. I then said:
It seems to me inconceivable that in the foreseeable future any Minister at the Department"—
the Ministry of Defence—
will not want the regiment to reflect a proper balance of the communities in Northern Ireland…If it is 100 per cent. sectarian, it can only be because one section of the community chooses not to come forward."—[Official Report, 1 December 1969; Vol. 792, c. 1149.]
As many hon. Members have reminded us, when the UDR was set up many Catholics came forward, and 18 per cent. of the regiment were Catholics. Their numbers soon dwindled for reasons forcefully pointed out to us by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea). It is ironic that, in the debate on the setting up of the UDR, the attack on that regiment was led by the then hon. Member

for Mid-Ulster, Bernadette Devlin. I hope that she will read the forceful words of the present hon. Member for Mid-Ulster.
Catholic UDR members were attacked at home and Catholic recruitment could have been maintained only if the political leaders of the constitutional parties who drew their main strength from the Catholic community had issued an unequivocal call to young Catholic men and women to join the regiment. Sadly, that call never came.
When the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, I once again hoped that part of the price paid would be an unequivocal call from the leaders of the Social Democratic and Labour party and from other leaders of the Catholic community for young men and women from that community to join the UDR and the security forces. One might have hoped that the leaders of the SDLP would be here and might have given a word of encouragement even at this late hour for members of their community to join the new regiment. Sadly, that has not happened and I now wonder whether it can ever happen.
We must all hope that the new regiment will play a leading role in protecting the whole population of Northern Ireland. I tend to agree with the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). The whole question of intelligence and of intelligence gathering is more important than regimental organisation. The key to success now, as it has been, is not increased patrols on the streets of Belfast, although that may help to relieve the fears of the public. If we really want to stop the terrorists, it means more tapped telephones, more electronic surveillance—or bugging, to put it more bluntly—more interrogation of suspects, and more use of informers and double agents. The intelligence world is bound to be untidy, but the recent trial in Belfast suggests that, at the least, co-ordination could be improved.
The disturbances and killings in recent weeks have underlined and strengthened the argument which some of us have put forward in recent months that "Options for Change" and the reduction of the strength of the infantry in the British Army has gone too far. I have consistently argued that the cuts in the infantry battalions are too deep and that the main threat that we face comes from the sort of low intensity operations in which we are embroiled on the streets of Belfast and in the villages of south Armagh.
The Conservative party's defence policy is infinitely superior to that put forward by our principal opponents. The upsurge of sectarian murders and the calls for yet more soldiers to be sent to the Province illustrate the problem of overstretch that we have all been discussing. There is a real danger of battalions having to go to Northern Ireland ever more frequently. I hope, therefore, that after the general election a new team of Conservative defence Ministers will look again at that argument.
I understand that in a few moments the House is to divide on the merger of the regiments, but I am sure that there is no division in the House on the debt that we owe to the men and women of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the brave way in which they have served the whole community of Northern Ireland in the past 22 years since we set up that regiment.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I shall be interested to know which way the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) intends to vote. He went to


great lengths to show how he has supported the Ulster Defence Regiment over the years and also went out of his way to liken his strength of feeling with that expressed by Democratic Unionist Members. I shall be interested to know whether he will follow their suit if a Division is called and vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
We intend to do as my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) said at the outset of the debate—to give the Government our full support on the Bill's Second Reading.
I have heard bits of all the speeches. I have left the Chamber from time to time, but I shall not fall into the trap, as an hon. Friend did last week, of giving the reasons why I had to do so. Suffice it to say that I have the full flavour of the debate. I shall respond to some of the points that have been raised.
First, I thank the Minister for introducing the debate with such clarity and for taking us through the Bill so closely. Although the Bill is not long, even the Ministry of Defence did not feel that a statutory basis was required to change the position of the Ulster Defence Regiment. The Minister's speech shows how quickly he and his civil servants have learnt what all the clauses stand for and what the changes are likely to be.
The Minister has our total support on two of the points that he made. He says that the Government are absolutely committed to upholding the rule of law and police primacy in Northern Ireland. Clearly, there is a bipartisan position on that commitment. Perhaps he could have a word with the hon. Member for Beckenham, as there appeared to be some disagreement on that point.

Sir Philip Goodhart: My right hon. Friend explained the Bill, which I shall support, with great clarity and force.

Mr. Marshall: I am pleased to hear that we agree on the word "clarity", if nothing else.
If we felt that the proposed amalgamation would undermine the fight against terrorism in the Province, we would not support the Bill. It is because the Labour party feels that the proposed amalgamation will strengthen the security forces in assisting the Royal Ulster Constabulary in the fight against terrorism that we shall vote for the Bill, if a Division takes place.
In his initial remarks, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) seemed to be trying to cause dissension and perhaps jealousy among spokespersons of the official Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North on his balanced representation of the official Opposition views on the Bill. I believe that, when the official Opposition speak on affairs affecting the Province, we always present a balanced view. Can the right hon. Gentleman name occasions and give examples when any official Opposition spokesperson speaking on Northern Ireland affairs has ever expressed anything other than a balanced view? The right hon. Gentleman may sometimes have disagreed with our views, but that does not mean that they were not presented in a fair and balanced way.

Mr. Molyneaux: It is true that from time to time the views of the Labour party's Front-Bench spokesmen on Northern Ireland matters do not find a ready response from the Ulster Unionist party or the Democratic

Unionist party. I was paying compliments to those on the Opposition Front Bench, but I hope that my comments will not damage their electoral prospects.

Mr. Marshall: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he will not damage our prospects.
On a more serious point, the right hon. Gentleman expressed some pessimism as to whether the enrolment of Catholics in the new regiment would be at the same level as it now is in the Royal Irish Rangers. Although I accept that there are grounds for his pessimism, I hope that we share the feeling that more Catholics would think it worth while serving in the new regiment if we could provide the protection required to increase their ratio. Despite the right hon. Gentleman's pessimism, I hope that that is something that we both wish to see, and I hope that it will happen.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley also said that he hoped that amalgamation would not be used to weaken the contribution of locally recruited soldiers. I certainly agree with him on that, and I hope that the Minister will assure us on that point.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the House will not be surprised to hear that, once again, I totally disagree with everything that he said. He appeared to be advancing the view that the Bill was part of some grand conspiracy to undermine the Ulster Defence Regiment and to destabilise the security position in Northern Ireland. I totally disagree, and I am sure that the vast majority of hon. Members disagree too.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not like to leave the House with the idea that he had disagreed with my remarks about the gallantry of the Roman Catholic members of the UDR and the sorrow brought to the families to whom I referred.

Mr. Marshall: I certainly do not disagree with those remarks. Later, if I have time, I shall add my praise and sorrow for those groups. But the hon. Gentleman's main political point was that the Bill is part of a grand conspiracy to undermine the UDR and further destabilise security in Northern Ireland. That is quite wrong, and the hon. Gentleman does a great disservice to everyone in Northern Ireland by continuing to advance that view.
The amalgamation cannot be interpreted as a sign of weakness. It does not amaze me that the hon. Member for Antrim, North should seek to introduce the Anglo-Irish Agreement to the debate. This measure cannot be interpreted as arising from the influence of the Irish Government. The need for amalgamation and reorganisation stems from the requirement to review the overall defence needs of the United Kingdom and to examine security requirements in the Province and the role of the Royal Irish Regiment in them.
I agreed with the opening remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell), who said that he and his party would judge the Bill by the effectiveness of security arrangements in the Province after amalgamation. I agree with that; I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman and his party concluded that they would not support the Bill if they had any doubts about the effectiveness of those arrangements after amalgamation. We take the same line.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) will be pleased to know that I agreed with at least two of his points. For perhaps the first time in the past 22 years, the


point was made that more Ulster Catholics are involved in the fight against terrorism than are involved in terrorism. Without over-generalising, that at least shows that there are hundreds of thousands of people in the nationalist community who are just as determined as the majority community that terrorism is not the way to bring about political change.
After amalgamation, if there are proposed changes in the operational role of battalions based only in Northern Ireland, will the Minister give us some idea of what such changes might involve by comparison with the UDR's role today?
My old adversary, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), claimed that amalgamation is likely to besmirch the name of the UDR and in some way diminishes the valour of past and present members of it. I believe that I can carry the whole House with me by disagreeing with that. Members of all parties have paid tribute to the bravery and courage of the UDR, whose members will still have a leading part to play in the defence of the Province, in the fight against terrorism and as part of the new regiment.
I take offence when words like appeasement and betrayal are bandied about so freely in this House by an hon. Member. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the legislation does not appease terrorists. It does not betray the people of the Province or hand them to terrorists. We support it because it shows the terrorists that when change to the security forces is required we are prepared to support it so that the fight against terrorism can be carried on far better than it has been in the past. The hon. Gentleman should be a little more careful about his use of words such as appeasement and betrayal.

Rev. William McCrea: The hon. Gentleman can take it from me that many people who have served in the UDR believe that the Bill is a betrayal of all their sacrifices.

Mr. Marshall: I am not at all surprised that some people feel like that. Perhaps it is because of their sense of identification with the Ulster Defence Regiment. Those feelings are misplaced and I cannot help feeling that they are engendered by some of the public remarks of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. [interruption.] We all wish to see a reduction in terrorist activity in the Province, and the majority of hon. Members agree that the Bill is a step forward in the fight against terrorists. Hopefully, it will lead to a reduction in terrorist activity.
I repeat that we recognise the courage, dedication and sense of duty that have led to so many people in the Province joining the Ulster Defence Regiment and assisting the RUC and other elements of the British Army in the fight against terrorism. We pay tribute to their bravery, and honour the hundreds of people who have died and those who have been injured in the fight against terrorism.
At a time of tremendous change in defence requirements, not just in the United Kingdom but throughout the world, it is inevitable that the UDR cannot stand isolated and immune from change. That does not indicate any weakening of our resolve to combat terrorism. On the contrary, I hope, and I think it is a shared hope, that the successor regiment to the UDR and

the Royal Irish Rangers will be in the forefront in assisting the RUC in the continuing fight against terrorism from whichever quarter it springs.
The Bill is a step forward. We all recognise the difficulties that the UDR has faced in recruiting people from the minority community, and I do not wish to rehearse those arguments again. Whether one likes it or not, to some extent—I put it no higher than that—that has helped to alienate the UDR from the minority community. Our hope, which must be shared by all parties, is that the new regiment will be able to continue the tradition of the Royal Irish Rangers, which was able to recruit a much higher percentage of Catholics than the UDR. My view, and I think that of my party, is that if that were to happen the make-up of the new regiment would be more representative of the Province as a whole.
As the Minister said, the amalgamation will produce a less isolated, better trained and more professional force. I was pleased to hear that the Government intend to proceed with their earlier suggestion that individual soldiers will be switched between the general battalions and the home-based battalions. I hope that many hundreds of members of the new regiment will take advantage of that, because it offers great experience and will increase their professional opportunities.
The amalgamation must be genuine and not simply the absorption of one regiment by another. In forging a new identity it must absorb the best traditions of the Royal Irish Rangers and the Ulster Defence Regiment. We believe that it will and we wish it well.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: With the leave of the House, I must say that this has been a spirited debate and I much appreciate the support that we have had from both Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) mentioned 750 redundancies in the regiment. He was referring to the amalgamation of the two regular battalions of the Royal Irish Rangers. He deduced from that that there would be 750 redundancies. Natural wastage will take place to some degree, so we would not expect that number. I would not want anyone to get the impression that the reductions in numbers in the Regular Army will affect the UDR. We do not envisage the members of the home service battalions being affected by that measure.
We are working on an enhanced resettlement package, which would read across to the Army and would be available to anyone who was made redundant. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to make an announcement about that in the not-too-distant future.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) told us about three of his constituents who were forced out of the UDR on the ground that they were Catholics and were coming under enormous pressure locally. He also went on to tell us about the great dangers for UDR recruits who live near the border with the Republic. I certainly accept that. I must admit that those who joined up showed enormous courage and it is a great tragedy that there is such a small percentage of Roman Catholics in the UDR. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the price of amalgamation was the abandonment of the UDR's role in Northern Ireland. I can say


categorically that that is not the case. We are doing this because we value the role that the UDR plays in Northern Ireland and we want that role to continue.
However, we must constantly remind ourselves that the basic reasons for what we are doing are military. We are saying that we want a more professional, better trained number of people in the home service battalions. Once we start to go down the road of saying that the main reason is to recruit more Catholics or to provide a sop to the Dublin Government, we are all over the place. The main reasons are military. We believe that as a result we shall have more professional soldiers, who will have greater opportunities. It is important to remember that that is the rationale of what we are trying to do. If we go down the road of being concerned about other issues, we shall be badly diverted from the main point.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley was also worried that training would be increased to a level where part-timers would not be able to keep up. He had a reservation about that. Today the training of part-timers has to be dealt with with enormous sensitivity by commanding officers. We realise that some people are available and can take off blocks of days for training. Other part-timers in the UDR are not able to do so. It is not our intention to work some surreptitious scheme to get rid of part-timers. We very much value them. For those who can make the time available, there will be opportunities to train on the mainland. The general view is that the soldiers would enjoy the opportunity to go to the mainland—where they would have different training facilities—and that they will probably be safer while they are there than they would be in Northern Ireland. A soldier will also be able to choose to serve in Northern Ireland, without any prejudice to his career. I can certainly give the right hon. Gentleman that undertaking.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley is also concerned about the period of notice. I understand his concern about the possibility of changes to notice arrangements which currently apply to members of the Ulster Defence Regiment. Under current plans, which we shall need to reflect in the new regulations, there wild be no change in the ability of a part-timer to give a month's notice of termination of service. That is important. Conditions of service covering the notice that a part-timer gives will remain as they are now.
As regards the permanent cadre, we have in mind that they should in future serve on engagements closer to those of the rest of the Army. That would involve a notice period of a year. As I said in my opening remarks, where there are special circumstances justifying a more rapid departure from the home service battalions, I would not expect there to be any problem in practice. These arrangements exist in the Regular Army and they will be used where necessary in the new regiment. If there are security reasons that mean that someone has to leave quickly, we shall be in a position to allow that to happen. In those circumstances, a commanding officer will not say, "No, we need a year's notice and you must stay in."
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley was concerned also about advertising for recruits and whether advertising for recruits was continuing. I can give him undertakings. In the financial year 1990–91, £110,000 was allocated and spent on UDR recruitment. There was advertising in newspapers and magazines, and occasionally on television. Recruitment is aimed generally at bringing in both full-time and part-time members, but on

occasions it is directed specifically at either category. In the financial year 1991–92, £110,000 has again been allocated. Additional funds may be available to launch the new regiment. It is not possible to separate expenditure between that directed towards the permanent cadre and that which is aimed at part-time recruitment. Basically, it is normally aimed at both.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about members of home service battlions being forced to serve away from local areas and made a valuable point on local knowledge and its importance in the fight against terrorism. We greatly value the contribution of part-timers and the local knowledge that they can offer. The terms of service of part-timers remain substantially as they are now. There are no plans to post part-timers away from local areas.
The permanent cadre must be able to see a full and professional career for its members in service in the British Army. The military authorities will consider carefully the need for postings against the need to maintain local knowledge. There will be a balance to be struck. I do not expect any postings away from home battalions to be on a substantial scale, but they may take place occasionally if, for example, there is a need to make up for a recruiting shortfall in a particular area.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) told us a terrible story about an undertaker who would not bury a UDR Roman Catholic soldier who had been killed. He described the terrible feelings of the man's family and said that a hearse had to come from some 25 miles away. It was an awful story and indicative of the problems that so many brave young soldiers faced when they joined the UDR at the beginning. The hon. Gentleman asked for a guarantee that everyone who is in the UDR will be entitled to join the new regiment. I think that I can give him that. I think that I can say that anybody who is part of the UDR at the end of June will be offered a place in the new regiment. I believe that I have dealt with the opportunities to resign.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North asked about the closure of UDR bases. The bases and locations from which the security forces operate are, as the House knows, constantly reviewed. We are examining the locations from which the home service battalions will operate most effectively in future. Any changes will be designed to ensure the continuation of a strong security force presence throughout the Province. The bases are not free-standing locations but part of a central pattern of operating bases throughout the Province. We should not feel that the amalgamation will be a reason to start closing bases. As I have said, they are constantly under review. The hon. Gentleman will know that bases have been closed in the past and new ones opened.
The hon. Members for Antrim, North, for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) wanted to know what would happen to the UDR benevolent fund when the amalgamation has taken place. The fund is a registered charity which provides valuable support in the form of loans, grants and other welfare support to current and former members of the UDR and their families. It depends on voluntary contributions. Full arrangements for its administration after the merger have not been decided. I can confirm, however, that there are no plans for it to be wound up. It will continue to be available to provide assistance to those whom it helps now.

Mr. Molyneaux: Can the Minister confirm the suggestion in the Library briefing paper that the new headquarters will be in Ballykinler? Also—this may be dealt with in the regulations—is it the intention to harmonise the housing allowances for full time UDR members with those paid in the Regular Army?

Mr. Hamilton: One of the problems that we have had throughout this debate is the briefing from the House of Commons Library. The Government are not responsible for that briefing, and it is made clear on the front of that document that it is independently produced. I do not think that all the information that it contains is quite accurate—including the percentage of Catholics in the Royal Irish Rangers. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking in respect of Ballykinler. Decisions are being made, but no conclusion has yet been reached.
As to help with housing, I do not see a substantial difference from the situation that the UDR enjoys today. Most of its members are not in the same position as those of the Regular Army, who have married quarters, and so on. Fundamentally, we will see much the same terms and conditions of employment as exist today.
A number of right hon. and hon. Members spoke of the gradual decline in the number of part-timers serving in the UDR. In recent years, increasing operational demands have been placed on the regiment and, as a result, the original part-time force has been transformed into one that is half part-time and half full-time, permanent cadre soldiers.
With the gradual increase in the permanent cadre, it appears that the community has increasingly seen the UDR's task as one for full-time, professional soldiers. Fewer part-time recruits have come forward, and there has been a gradual decrease in the strength of the UDR's part-time element. That has occurred through natural wastage over the years, and we expect that trend to continue. There is no policy to cut the number of part-time UDR soldiers.
The UDR's part-time element continues to fulfil an extremely valuable role in supporting the RUC in the fight against terrorism. There are no plans to disband the part-time UDR or to change its role. As I mentioned earlier, we are very grateful for the surge capability that it offers, when it comes to calling up the UDR's part-time element in extreme terrorist situations.

Mr. Kilfedder: Can the Minister give an assurance that there will be advertising in Northern Ireland to encourage people to come forward to serve in a part-time capacity?

Mr. Hamilton: I thought that I had already dealt with that question. We have the same advertising budget as last year. It is aimed at recruiting permanent cadre and part-time UDR members, and will appear in newspapers and on television.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North that people did not join the UDR to become Regular soldiers. When the regiment was formed, its members thought that they were joining a reserve. At the beginning, the percentages were 10 per cent. permanent cadre and 90 per cent. part-timers. The part-timers thought that they would be called up only in an emergency, when the situation got out of hand.
As we know, the situation got out of hand the moment that they joined, and they have been called up ever since.

Certainly, that is true of the permanent cadre. The regiment has changed as it has developed and has become more and more a professional body. The percentage of permanent cadre has risen, and as time has gone by, the attitude of UDR members has probably altered towards the whole business of being part of the British Army. For that reason, they will be extremely grateful for the opportunities to expand their careers in the British Army that the Bill will make available to them.
On the question of general service battalions serving in Northern Ireland—my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) raised this point—the new regiment will have its regular service battalions, which will serve alongside the home service battalions. There is no reason why this should not go on as in the past.
I very much commend the Bill to the House, and I hope that members of the Democratic Unionist party will find it possible to support it too.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:-

The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 5.

Division No. 81]
[10 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Amess, David
Hunt, Sir John  (Ravensbourne)


Amos, Alan
Irvine, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Jack, Michael


Ashby, David
Janman, Tim


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Bellotti, David
Knapman, Roger


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Body, Sir Richard
Lamond, James


Boswell, Tim
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Bottomley, Peter
Latham, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Lawrence, Ivan


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Lewis, Terry


Brazier, Julian
Lightbown, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Livsey, Richard


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Lord, Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
McAvoy, Thomas


Budgen, Nicholas
McCartney, Ian


Burt, Alistair
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Butterfill, John
Maclean, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Mans, Keith


Carrington, Matthew
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Chapman, Sydney
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Chope, Christopher
Maude, Hon Francis


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Cormack, Patrick
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Cran, James
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Cryer, Bob
Miller, Sir Hal


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Mills, Iain


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Mitchell, Sir David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Moate, Roger


Devlin, Tim
Morrison, Sir Charles


Dixon, Don
Neubert, Sir Michael


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Norris, Steve


Fookes, Dame Janet
Page, Richard


French, Douglas
Paice, James


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Reid, Dr John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Riddick, Graham


Hampson, Dr Keith
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Hardy, Peter
Shaw, David (Dover)


Harris, David
Shersby, Michael


Hayes, Jerry
Skinner, Dennis


Haynes, Frank
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Snape, Peter


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Speller, Tony






Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wareing, Robert N.


Stevens, Lewis
Warren, Kenneth


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wells, Bowen


Summerson, Hugo
Wheeler, Sir John


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wilkinson, John


Thompson, Sir D. (Calder Vly)
Wilshire, David


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Winterton, Nicholas


Thorne, Neil
Wood, Timothy


Trippier, David



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)





NOES


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)



Kilfedder, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Paisley, Rev Ian
Rev. William McCrea and


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Mr. Peter Robinson.


Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Monday 17th February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempt business), Mr. Speaker shall put the Question or Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to the European Economic Area not later than three hours after their commencement; and that Motion may be proceeded with after the expiry of the time for opposed business—[Mr. Boswell.]

EUROPEAN STANDING COMMITTEES

Ordered,
That the unnumbered Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 29th November and 10th December 1991, relating to Agreements between the Community and Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia, and by the Department of Trade and Industry on 30th December 1991, relating to the establishment of a European Economic Area, shall not stand referred to European Standing Committee B.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Orders of the Day — Dioxin (Bolsover)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I make no apology for returning to the issue of dioxin in the Bolsover area. What I am absolutely sure started off in the Minister's mind as being nothing more than a nine-day wonder has turned out to be an eight-month scandal.
It all began on 26 June, when the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in a written answer to a question planted by a Tory—not even in a reply to the hon. Member for Bolsover—informed the House that two farms in the Bolsover area, near the Coalite plant, would have to stop selling milk. It was a devastating blow for the farmers, as can be imagined, and it was also a worry for the people in the Bolsover area. Because the milk could not be sold, it had to be destroyed. It was sent to an incinerator plant in the west midlands. The Minister did not even know whether that plant could burn the dioxin. As a result, the contaminated milk was spread round the west midlands, and finally it was sent up to Ellesmere Port for incineration.
We immediately called for a public inquiry. I reckon that it is the kind of subject that warrants a public inquiry, but we did not even have a statement in this House. The only references to the matter are to be found in answers to questions that I and other hon. Members put to the Minister. When, in October, we heard that another farmer in the Bolsover area had been prevented from pursuing his livelihood we began to wonder whether the Minister cared at all. With the stopping of a third farmer's production, one would have expected the Government to hold an inquiry and pay compensation to the farmers concerned. They have had every opportunity. They have only to study what happens in Holland, where when such events occur the Government pay compensation and then sue the polluter. But all that the Government of this country can do is to keep saying that the polluter must pay. Just imagine three small farmers trying to take on a £40 million giant like Anglo United Coalite. These people have a problem, and they have had to turn to their Member of Parliament and to others to raise it for them.
It is interesting that when the safety levels were measured two farms out of 27—a third was discovered later—would have failed the tests. I made some inquiries because I wondered what happened to the other 25 farms—did the dioxin test apply to them? I found out that only just before the tests were carried out the Government had changed the testing ratio by a factor of 10. The result of my inquiries was the discovery that if the old figures had been used to judge the safety level every farm in that area of north Derbyshire would have been deemed to be producing contaminated milk and putting it into the milk chain. That change of measurement has not been disputed as it appeared in New Scientist on 20 July.
Not long afterwards, the National Rivers Authority got into action. As a result of my representations, it did some tests immediately above the effluent discharge of Bolsover Coalite and immediately below in the watercourse known as the river Doe Lea, a relatively small stream. The NRA had already established that the river Doe Lea was 1,000 times above the safety level. When measured, the level of


dioxin sediment above the effluent discharge turned out to be very much higher below that point after the effluent had been pushed into the river.
At that point we were beginning to establish that Coalite was a factor. Hitherto, Coalite had said, "If you mention our name outside, we will sue." About that time some of the workers at Coalite became worried about what might ensue, but they were not worried in the way that Coalite management expected. They turned up at meetings arranged by environmental groups because they and the trade union shop stewards knew that as they worked in the plant they had to be part of a programme to try to clean up the ghastly mess.
Further calls were made for an inquiry—Derbyshire county council, Bolsover district council and the local parish council all joined in and said that there should be a public inquiry. Some of the local authorities took the time to examine everything through the environmental health committees to ensure that they were on safe ground. Not long after that, a report by the BBC said that a cluster of breast cancers which had been reported in that part of north Derbyshire was calculated to be 50 per cent. higher than the national average. Still the Government refused to act. There was still no statement.
During this time the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, when he was not stuffing beefburgers down his kid's throat, went to see the farmers—

Mr. Frank Haynes: I thought that he was a vegetarian.

Mr. Skinner: No, he is the opposite. He went to see the farmers and gave them the impression that they were not to worry because it would all be over by Christmas: "We know that Skinner is asking for compensation but we shall provide you with a bit of money from the common agricultural fund or from the Ministry and we will pay you to do a bit of research." However, the farmers did not want that—they wanted to get back to their husbandry of cows and to producing milk.
One might think that the farmers were taken in, but the truth is they were not. The matter was not sorted out by Christmas. By this time, the dioxin-contaminated milk had been around for six months. Every time we asked the Minister what was happening, he was very complacent and said that everything would be sorted out. It is still not sorted out. What the Minister thought was a minor blip on the horizon is still a massive scandal. One of my hon. Friends, who might catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, has also raised the problem of an area adjacent to the River Doe Lea, only a couple of miles away.
About November or December time I had another letter. It came from a constituent who was not engaged in milk production but who owned a little field next to Coalite. He told me that he had sent a letter to the Minister of Agriculture because he was worried about whether he should allow a lady to graze her horse in his field. He was thinking of using the field for cattle and sheep the following year and he wanted to know if it would be safe to do so. He told me that he kept writing to the Minister but that the Minister would not answer his letters.
This was the 64-dollar question, because here we had the Government covering up a scandal. They had neither

the guts nor the decency to tell my constituent what to do about grazing a horse. So I took the matter up with the Minister himself.

Mr. Haynes: With this Minister?

Mr. Skinner: No, I wrote to his gaffer, although no one thinks of Gummer as being a gaffer; they used to call him the wart on Thatcher's nose. Finally, the Minister had to respond because the question came from an hon. Member, and the answer was that he did not think that the horse should be grazed there any more.
This was a qualitative change. First of all it was milk production. Then it was another farmer who was not engaged in milk production. Then it was another one with another field where the tests had not been done. But they were so scared that they had to tell him not to go ahead.
Hon. Members can imagine that by that time everyone in Bolsover was beginning to call for an inquiry. We have a petition here with thousands of signatures. Everyone has signed it, including all the political parties. Even the Liberal party told me that I was doing a great job—I was almost on the horns of a dilemma. They all know that it is wrong. This is one of the most dangerous toxic substances in the world, and the Government will not face up to the consequences.
The Bolsover district council has also written to the Minister, asking for a survey of atmospheric dioxins. It has received no answer.
I wonder what has happened to the citizens charter. The people of Bolsover keep asking about that. They ask why it is that the Prime Minister rabbits on every single week, going on television outside 10 Downing street, telling the nation about the citizens charter and how people can complain to the Government and get their problems solved, and yet they have had this problem for eight months and nothing has been done. We have to judge people not by what they say but by what they do, and it appears that the Prime Minister and his gang do not care about the people of Bolsover.
There is another problem that the Minister ought to turn his attention to—the history of the area. He ought to consider whether it is not just some airborne dioxins from a faulty incinerator which have been deposited. Could it be the fault of the 1968 fire, when 245T was produced and when the debris was flung hundreds of yards, that we now have dioxins embedded in those fields? Maybe when the two barrels of 245T went up in 1986 and the fire took place at Coalite, that too could have contributed to some static dioxins in the area, rather than just something happening because of a faulty incinerator.

Mr. Bob Cryer: It needs investigating.

Mr. Skinner: All these things need investigating, as my hon. Friend says.
Then I had a letter from the new Bolsover primary school.

Mr. William Ross: rose—

Mr. Skinner: I am sorry, but we have not got much time.
The little kids asked me only this week to raise the matter with the Minister in order to get it resolved. Fortunately, an election is on the way. When it has taken place and we have a Labour Government, something will


be done. The shadow spokesperson for agriculture made a statement when this whole saga began. He said that a Labour Government would set up a public inquiry. That is why, in a few months time, perhaps we shall have our public inquiry, and people will be able to express their views. Until then I ask the Minister why, even after eight months, he does not start a public inquiry.
If dioxin in milk, and all the rest of it, had been found anywhere near the Houses of Parliament or Buckingham palace, or in some Tory marginal seat, there would have been a public inquiry. If that would be good enough for those people, it should be good enough for the people of Bolsover as well.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Pollution knows no boundaries. North-east Derbyshire, Chesterfield and Bolsover constituencies and districts are intimately interlinked. The river Doe Lea, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), runs into the river Rother, which was known as one of the most polluted rivers in the country. But clearly at the moment the river Doe Lea is the most polluted river in the country.
There are many industrial plants along the river Rother, which add to pollution problems in the area and create difficulties for people living nearby. Plants such as Leigh Environmental, at Killamarsh—about which I once introduced an Adjournment debate—Staveley Chemicals—which is now known as Rhone Chemicals—and the Avenue coke works produce problems with airborne pollution and effluent. Forty million gallons of effluent a year are lost in deposits at Grassmoor lagoons, because the National Rivers Authority, rightly, will not let the effluent go straight into the river Rother without being treated—that would create extra problems. That causes difficulties for my constituents who live in the Grassmoor, Tupton, and Wingerworth areas.
A problem common to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover and myself is that when we pursue such matters we have to deal with a host of different authorities. There are the National Rivers Authority, different Government Departments—such as the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Energy—and a range of planning authorities at district and county level.
Something must be done to draw the threads together and co-ordinate the investigations, such as the public inquiry that my hon. Friend suggested in the dioxin case, or an environmental audit, operating through the Department of the Environment, to draw together the problems caused by the Avenue coke works. If those things do not happen, we find great difficulty in tackling the problems on behalf of our constituents.
The Avenue coke works produces smokeless fuel, which is environmentally desirable, so the process should continue. The jobs associated with it should also continue, but there is no reason why the health hazards and pollution should continue.
It is possible to square that circle, if there is a proper investigation and the correct assistance is provided at Government level.

The Paliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has laid a number of charges at the Government's door with which I will deal.
Dioxins have long been the focus of considerable public interest. They are ubiquitous and long-lasting environmental contaminants. They are unwanted by-products of some chemical processes, produced in minute quantities by combustion processes such as waste incineration, coal burning and forest fires. As a result, they can be found in trace quantities in the environment in all the industrialised countries.
Although such substances have throughout history been part of the environment, it is only in the last couple of years that the complex analytical techniques have been developed that have made it possible for us to measure down to the minuscule levels that enable us to set a figure on their level with any accuracy. I want to make it clear that we are talking, after all, of a few parts per thousand million million.
I will deal in some detail with the one very localised problem that our thorough and extensive safety surveillance has revealed. Last summer, our monitoring work disclosed the presence of higher levels of dioxins than usual in milk from two farms near Bolsover. We had also monitored milk at retail level as it reached the public and were well aware that levels there were quite normal, presenting no health risk to consumers.
The higher farm results, however, clearly necessitated action, and we immediately notified the milk marketing board, which found that the level of contamination in this milk was such that it did not meet its contract conditions. The board therefore took no further supplies from those farms, which were then unable to dispose of their milk for human consumption. There was therefore no possibility whatever of the contaminated milk getting into the public supply once the result of the monitoring was known.
It was, of course, necessary to put in place secure arrangements for the safe disposal of the milk that could no longer be sold. The hon. Member for Bolsover inquired about those arrangements by letter last August, and he has already received an explanation, so on this occasion I will do no more than mention briefly the salient points. The temporary arrangement set up in the early days was to have the milk transported to a water authority sewage plant, where it was mixed with a considerable quantity of sewage to dilute the dioxin content to a negligible level. The resulting sludge was then incinerated. The temporary arrangement came to an end on 2 August and was replaced by disposal of the milk to an incinerator equipped to carry out destruction of the material without the need for dilution.
The Department acted immediately to set up a further programme of testing both on the two farms and on a number of others in the locality where the levels were found, although not requiring action, to be higher than normal. The further testing programme brought to light a third farm in which the level of dioxins in milk necessitated further action. In this case, however, the farmer had not been selling milk for public consumption for some years. He was simply operating a suckler cow herd.
It is important to understand the comprehensive action that the Department undertook as a result of the situation,


which our food safety surveillance has now revealed. A very detailed research programme has been devised, which is now approaching its conclusion. All three farmers have agreed not to move animals off their farms while further testing is carried out. The programme has included the examination of dioxin concentrations in meat, covering animals of different age, sex and breed from a range of farms in the area as a whole and seeking to establish variations in dioxin concentration in edible tissues.
In milk, the programme has studied how changes have occurred in the dioxin concentration in milk from animals fed dioxin-free feed. The study has examined also how the level varies with time. Further information has also been obtained to establish the seasonal variation in the concentration of dioxins in milk taking account, for example, of changes in farming practice and the type of feed available.
Beyond those animal studies, dioxin concentrations in soil and herbage have been obtained from a range of different sites on the farms. All that work will help to enable detailed advice to be given on future farming and business operations, and the soil and herbage data in particular will allow valuable comparisons to be made with findings in other parts in the country.

Mr. Skinner: The Minister seems to be clear about the prognosis. Why did the Ministry promise the farmers that the matter would be cleared up by Christmas? One of the farmers, Mr. Murphy, wrote to me on 4 February, and I have sent his letter to the Ministry. He said, "Mr. Skinner, they promised that the matter would be cleared up by Christmas. The Ministry then told us it would be January. The Ministry then told us it would be February. It has still not been completed." I have an answer from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. On 11 February, he said that the Ministry is now not sure that it will even get the tests completed by mid-March, and that it might take longer than that. It is almost a year since the process began.

Mr. Maclean: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will publish the full data, the full research and all the conclusions. We will publish the report as soon as we can but it is a technical and complex area. We are searching for parts per quadrillion—parts per thousand million million—and it is not easy to do that and get it right. We are also conscious of sensitivities. Farmers' futures are at stake, and they and their representatives will have to decide what action to take in the future. It behoves my Department to get this absolutely right and ensure that, when we publish the report, the figures are absolutely correct so that everyone can rely on them.
The research programme has necessarily involved considerable disruption to the farmers concerned. Their normal farming activities have had to be dramatically changed, and considerable constraints have been necessary to their activities generally. In recognition of the considerable disturbance, inseparable from their co-operation in the research—co-operation that, I recognise, has been readily given—contracts have been drawn up with all of them under which payments have been made to them promptly and regularly for their part in the research work.
The hon. Member for Bolsover has been somewhat unfair to my right hon. Friend the Minister because, throughout this whole unfortunate incident, my right hon. Friend and I have been acutely conscious of the position of the three farmers principally concerned. The disruption of their lives and the uncertainty that still hangs over the future of their farms results from factors entirely outside their control. As the hon. Member will be aware, my right hon. Friend visited the two farmers who were first involved as soon as possible after the news had been broken to him. He was able to hear from them direct about the extent of the problems facing them, explore matters fully with them, and form his own view as to what needed to be done.
I have underlined the fact that we lost no time in setting up our comprehensive research programme, devoting considerable resources to analysing the dioxin problem on the farms and providing guidance and help on the problems that those families are facing during what is inevitably a period of great uncertainty.
The programme is drawing to an end, and we hope that the detailed results will be available by mid-March. That will enable us to assess all aspects of the situation, so that full and detailed advice can be offered to the three families on their business and husbandry options for the future.

Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maclean: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall not give way, as this is an important matter for Bolsover and Derbyshire, and I should like to get my remarks on the record. I do not want to be accused of a cover-up.
I well understand that the farmers, their advisers and their representatives are anxious to have all the information as quickly as possible. I give the hon. Member for Bolsover a categorical assurance that I share his concern. I am determined that there will be no avoidable delay in completing the work and presenting the results in full, but all of us—whether farmers desperate to know what the future holds, parliamentary representatives, like the hon. Gentleman, determined to ensure that the best interests of their constituents are served, or Ministers anxious to ensure that the fullest information is available to back the decisions that are taken—must remember that we are working at the very limits of the science.
Our scientists are conducting highly complex tests, analysing for minute traces of substances that will be present only in a few parts per thousand million million. That work is complicated and necessarily extremely time-consuming. It cannot be simplified, we will not cut corners and we cannot accelerate.
We shall complete the job, we shall do it properly, and we shall do it well. That is our firm undertaking. I reiterate and re-emphasise our unequivocal further undertaking that, as always, all the results of our programme will be published. Indeed, if the hon. Gentleman has read the copy of the report "Dioxins in Food" which was sent to him by my Department, he will have seen the detailed tables of statistics relating to the range of foodstuffs that we have monitored over the years. I assure him that he and everyone else concerned will have the same opportunity to study the figures resulting from our detailed investigations in the Bolsover area.
The hon. Gentleman has argued for a public inquiry. I have described the action taken in this case at some length to demonstrate that there really is no case for that. First,


there is no evidence that there has ever been a risk to health from what has occurred here. The milk reaching consumers has been tested and tested and found to present no risk. The cows on the affected farms have since been dried off and no further milk is being produced for human consumption. The contaminated milk has been safely destroyed.
Secondly, a comprehensive programme of further investigations has been undertaken on food products, on herbage and soil, and on emissions from the nearby chemical plant. Thirdly, categorical assurances have been given in the House several times—and I have repeated them tonight—that all the results of the testing programme will be published so that every scrap of relevant evidence will be available to be evaluated by all the parties to the affair to aid them in deciding on any future action that they may wish to contemplate.
Despite the criticisms laid at our door by the hon. Gentleman, I believe that the record clearly shows that the rapid and wide-ranging action taken by the Government over the Bolsover incident will stand up to any scrutiny. It was the very quality of our food surveillance programme—the equal of any in the world—that brought the problem to light in the first place. It was the highly specialised

expertise and the experience we have built up in this very complex area of analysis that has enabled us to assess the problem.
Our action has immediately removed any possibility of public concern that might have existed—and we have devoted a very considerable effort to further research that will guide us forward in future. We are, moreover, giving all the support that we can to the farmers involved, both through the research contracts that we have agreed with them, and the guidance and help we have offered to them in their difficult circumstances.
We shall be able to offer more precise and detailed guidance when the research programme is complete—and let me repeat that we are very close to being in that position now. We hope to publish the results by mid-March. We have made a very clear commitment to publish all the results of our work to reassure the public about the situation and to place the farmers concerned in the best position to decide on their future course of action.

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.